User talk:Girth Summit: Difference between revisions

RSN

Hi. The text was getting lost amidst another editor's formatting issues, so I was attempting to reformat my own text so as to be legible. Just added two bullets - is that a problem? Also, it seemed that the revised text from earlier is okay with you. Are further reedits being requested? If so, where are the issues presently? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, your reformatting indentation of posts affects other people's posts - their indentation shows which post they are replying to. Don't try to curate the indentation in the discussion - just leave it alone after people have responded. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

fyi, I was blocked for not indenting before. The missing indents above and below are what's causing the format issues, I might add. Not curating, but trying to keep my own edits legible, when other edits don't keep formatting standards. That's all that's going on. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, Pasdecomplot, my post was indented correctly. When you added a level of indent, you made it look like it was a response to a different post than the one I intended to respond to.

I was responding to yours of 12:48, 23 December 2020, which from a quick look at the content of both posts, is clearly correct. My response was indented one additional level, which is also correct. When you added a level of indent, you made it look like it was a response to yours of 14:14, 23 December 2020, which makes it seem like a non sequitur. I know you meant to be helpful but that is not only not helpful, it's actively destructive to the thread of the conversation.

Please, once again, just stop correcting my indents. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, PdC, you weren't correcting anything. WP:INDENT is a dull, but useful read. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, here's the first correction where the edit below mine wasn't indented. I indented it [1].Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Then, I added bullets to my own edits, since the other edits' indents, added by me, were removed [2]. Not indenting makes the RSN text hard to read. This was the second time I corrected formatting conflicts caused by other edits, but these you removed. I've since added spaces to my edits - to keep them legible. So, these were corrections and you weren't correcting anything is not quite accurate. As the diffs evidence. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you are mistaken - again, I encourage you to read WP:INDENT, and WP:THREAD, properly.

• In your first diff, the response was correctly indented before you changed it. It was a response to the comment you made immediately after your outdent ("To make sure inaccuracies are..."). I don't know why you decided to indent your own following post, but valereee was correct to apply only a single level of indent to her response to your unindented post.
• In your second diff, I don't know why you decided to add bullet point, but again, your changes messed up the indenting in the following comments - WP:THREAD advises us not to mix colon and bullet indentation, so your going back to add bullets after someone has responded with colons just messes things up.

Indentation is fairly complicated, lots of people make mistakes with it, and it's not reasonable to expect anyone to be perfect. However, it is reasonable to expect you not to mess around with other people's indentation, and it is reasonable to expect you not to modify posts after they have been responded to. So, again: stop it. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Lack of information and a lot of wrong facts

I edited the page to explain thoroughly for the world what Function Medicine is. Your article does not describe FM, and this completely distorted and totally flawed article is a terrifying example of source criticism. Wikipedia is not to be trusted as long as thinkers and speculators can rule the roost like this.

Since the EU and a whole world of researchers, universities and doctors are now preparing an implementation of functional medicine, I would like to see how your article contributes in any way...! The plan they have made goes towards 2030 and full implementation. Do not contact me if you get sick, you have a wrong understanding of life, and do not understand basic science! My article explains and states facts. Your article states your personal opinion and shows a total lack of knowledge. That is why I changed it.

I am a teacher, a skilled health-advisor and a researcher with political background for more than 20 y.

If you find ANYTHING wrong in my article, make a howl!

--Piawelde (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Pia

I'm howling. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Piawelde It's not 'my' version of the article - it was written collaboratively by numerous contributors. I wasn't one of them, I just patrol recent changes for vandalism. You accuse others of trying to 'rule the roost', but you are the one wading in and insisting that your version of the article be used, without any discussion with anybody else - that's not how this place works, and it will result in your account being blocked from editing if you persist with it.

From a Wikipedia perspective, there was a lot wrong with your version of the article. This isn't the place to discuss the specifics of the content, but you were including external links inappropriately, and most of your content was not supported by reliable sources. As I said at your talk page, you are welcome to engage at the talk page if you have suggestions for changes (and if you have sources which support them). GirthSummit _(blether) 14:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note about some recent edits

Hello again Pasdecomplot, I wanted to drop you a note about a couple of recent edits of yours.

• This one appears to be the removal of reliably sourced content, for reasons I don't understand. As your edit summary acknowledged, the material was sourced to the Sydney Morning Herald, and to Reuters. The assertion made in the article is that "Chinese forces claimed to have found weapons" - that is verifiable from the sources. I could understand that you might be concerned about an assertion along the lines of "Chinese forces found weapons", which was sourced to an unreliable source; but the assertion as written seems factual and reliably sources - you can't just go around removing stuff like that. I see that your removal has been reverted, so there's no action required from you, but I'd be glad if you could either point out something that I've missed, or acknowledge that you understand that you shouldn't make changes like that.
• This one appears to be encroaching on your topic ban again. In our previous discussions on this, I advised you that if you are unsure about the boundaries of that ban, you should approach them with caution. I'm going to repeat that advice. You mention a skewed POV, you says that some edits systematically cast the Chinese government in a somewhat more favorable light, and you name the user who introduced them. You have not flat-out called that other editor biased, but the implication is obvious, and it's totally unnecessary. You could have said "In my view, the prose doesn't currently represent the situation fairly", or even "In my view, the prose in its current state leans too heavily towards the Chinese government position" - either of those statements would explain your concern about the article, and you could have then gone on to suggest some changes. That's how you should be approaching article talk pages, talking about content and sourcing, not editors and POVs.

I hope that's clear; as ever, let me know if you have any questions. I wish you a happy new year, I hope it's better for all of us than this last one has been. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 11:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well. Thanks for the thoughts. I thought it best to move this here, hope that's ok:

• The edits were deleted since their source is CCTV, which is depreciated per RSN, and should be removed per RSN policy. Also, the inline attribution to another paper was false, since the link and ref url was to SMH, which was quoting CCTV. My understanding is it doesn't matter if NYT quoted CCTV, since CCTV is depreciated on the project.
• I'm a bit confused. The last I read, the administrator on the ban is another editor. And, there's a problem with edits at that page as the edit history reveals - another editor has also more recently responded to same issue. If the language at issue here is closely examined, it will be discovered that it's a direct quotation from the same thread in the talk at that page. Does this clarify the issue?

Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, why did you think it better to move this here? I'm not going to edit war with you about it, but I'm an administrator approaching you with concerns about your editing - your talk page seemed the natural place for that discussion to take place. I should tell you that my talk page is a much less private space, there are a lot of editors who watch it.

With regard to your comments above:

• No, that is not how we deal with deprecated sources. If NYT says that the Chinese government has claimed something, we can use that as a source to say that the Chinese government has claimed something - it doesn't matter what their source is. You are right, the attribution was incorrect - you could have easily fixed that, rather than removing the entire paragraph (although in truth, the attribution isn't necessary - with a couple of different RSes confirming that the Chinese government made that claim, it's not contentious).
• I don't really understand what you mean by 'the administrator on the ban is another editor' - the ban is yours, it was implemented by one particular admin, but any administrator can take action over breaches of it. I used my discretion and opted to give you advice, rather than applying a sanction. With regard to the edits in the history of that article, it doesn't matter whether or not you are correct about the edits, you are explicitly prohibited from mentioning that kind of thing at that talk page. Talk about the content, or take it to ANI if you think it's serious enough - those are your options. Please take my advice, I don't want to see you blocked again, but that is likely to be the end result if you keep transgressing that TBan. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit and Pasdecomplot: CCTV (distinct from CCTV International) also isn't formally deprecated at WP:RSP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don't refactor stuff after it's been replied to. Add anything you want to below this, but there is already a link to the diff at the top of this thread. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, there wasn't a reply when I edited to add the possibly overlooked diff on the deletion. So, here it is[3]which specifically mentions CCTV and the rationale for the good faith deletion. As can be ascertained in the deleted text, the inline attribution to another paper was also false, since the link and ref url was to SMH, which was quoting CCTV. My understanding is it doesn't matter if NYT quoted CCTV, since CCTV is depreciated on the project. MarkH21's edit summary revert seems to disagree. So, the recent edit clarifies the correct source as SMH and their source as CCTV here [4]. But even that's been reverted. Hum. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, of course it's been reverted, it was flat-out wrong. Seriously, have you actually read what I've written above? No, that's not how we treat deprecated sources. Attribution isn't necessary, there are two separate RSes there supporting the content, it shouldn't be in any way contentious. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(You're replying faster than I can gather diffs...) Just so the good faith effort is understood, the source is specifically CCTV, not generally "the Chinese government". Thus, the concern because it's depreciated. The page's inline sources even CNN when quoting exceptional claims from PRC. If deleting CCTV when quoted by RS is not policy, then I've just learned, and thanks. But, deleting inline sourcing to SMH and CCTV on an exceptional claim by CCTV? When Nyingchi/Economy/Tourism has three inline sources in just one paragraph? Hum again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, I don't know what you're talking about with Nyingchi/Economy/Tourism or about the CNN/PRC stuff. Getting back to this particular edit, on the face of it, I don't see any reason why the statement would need to be attributed to CCTV, but I also wouldn't be too worried about editors choosing to attribute in that way if it were to be done properly. What you wrote about the SMH was flat-out wrong though: you said that SMH published a report by CCTV, which was factually incorrect. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Back from vet

Sorry for my hurried post at arbcase; I am back from the vet now (left the little one there, concern whether it is something chronic as in cancer/tumor, or acute, as in bowel obstruction or other injury). I am heading back to the arbpage now to finish copyediting my post and correct my formatting, but I was wondering if, after I finish that, you would mind adding a sub-head to your portion? Right now, it is under "Scope of issues", which is a different matter ... maybe this section could have a heading more related to the rollback matter ... or the Protonk matter, but not right to single out an editor in sub-head? I ask because I have real eyesight issues and hate editing long sections, insert spaces between posts to make them easier to read, and so on ... Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, my sincere sympathies for the stress you must be going through with regard to your pet. We lost our dog to cancer towards the end of last year, it was completely unexpected (she was only six) and unspeakably awful. I really hope that whatever is going on with your little one is minor, and treatable.

I'll go back and add a subheading when it looks like you're finished (unless one of the clerks gets there first).

Can I also say a couple of other things, that I'd like you to know, but which I don't think are really relevant to the Arbcom case and I don't want to give the arbs more reading.

• I don't think that I have anything to apologise to Protonk for. In my mind what I wrote was fair, polite, and pertinent - I'd be happy to discuss it with him if he feels differently, but I don't think I wronged him. That said, things like that matter to me, so I'd welcome your view if you want to offer it.
• I don't think of Flyer as a wikifriend, more as a colleague. We've never written together, we don't hang out and shoot the breeze, but we cross paths occasionally because we both do counter vandalism work. I've openly taken a different view from her in more than one discussion that I can bring to mind, and one of my first editing experiences here was being reverted by her - it's not like I'm always on her side. If I appear defensive of her now, it might be because I have deeply unpleasant but vivid memories of seeking out and revdeleting the most vile insults and threats about her that you can imagine. There is at least one LTA who has it in for her, and who regularly socks to harass and intimidate her. Removing stuff like that is unpleasant, but I don't do it because she's a friend, I'd do it for any contributor; perhaps however, coming face to face with the mysoginistic crap she has had to put up with has made me instinctively supportive of her, just as I suspect it has made her instinctively over-defensive. You mentioned a faulty defense mechanism; perhaps it's been worn down by over use.

cheers, GirthSummit _(blether) 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GS (for all of that-- you've clearly seen things I can't see, since I don't have tools).

I should have some answers on the little one soon; with COVID, the process is, leave her inside the vet's door, in her kennel, with a note about symptoms, and wait 'til they call you. That way, vet doesn't have to interact with public as much-- and he is a very close personal friend who loves the little one-- best dog I've ever had, and I've had tons. She is 11, and I do actually suspect cancer or a tumor, so if I get better news that it is instead another acute, rather than chronic matter, it will be Hallelujah relief !!!

There is no doubt I made mistakes here, and I hope my responses to you don't come across as aimed at criticizing you. You just happen to be an example of what I view to be the core problem here (Flyer was not going to hear someone like you, that is, subtly was lost amid the chorus of support, and hence, issues escalated).

I sincerely appreciate your tone and your clarification here; it could be moot now, if Flyer does not return, but if she does, I will come to you for examples of how to better interact. With the benefit of hindsight, it's not hard to see that a tone I would adopt with someone more "hardy" (not perhaps the right word) was not helpful with Flyer. Did you see the post I linked to at SarahSV's talk page, where WTT weighed in? Do you think it possible to round up a group of admins who would mentor? Do you view that as a possibility?

On whether your should discuss with Protonk, I really don't know ... I don't know them well at all ... I guess, wait and see if they return, or if they have given up? The problem I thought was more with Johnuniq's response, and you got mentioned by me in the arbcase only as a result of Barkeep's inquiry-- I really did not mean to single you out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I don't know about a mentor exactly - I can't speak for her, but she's been editing here longer than most, suggesting that she needs a mentor might not go down well. A better way to frame it might be a group of 'critical friends', whom she feels she can turn to for support if she is in a difficult situation, and/but who would be willing and able to give constructive criticism and have it listened to. To be honest, I think we can all benefit from having people like that around us, I know that the most helpful interactions I've had here are from people who've been willing to tell me where I'm going wrong (as I mentioned in that recent discussion about the tone of FA review process, and my recent comment at TRM's recent arbcom amendment request). I don't know if she'd be receptive to that, and I don't know whether having it opposed upon her would be acceptable to her, but it might be an offer she would be willing to consider by way of an olive branch. I truly hope that she hasn't left forever - I genuinely believe she is an asset to the project, despite reading through all of the evidence that has been presented. I also think we collectively owe her better than she's received thus far.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you and your girl - I really hope it's an acute thing which can be patched up, and that you have a few more years with her. It doesn't matter how old they are, it's always a wrench when they go. If you are interested in poetry, I strongly recommend the 'In Praise of a Collie' by Norman MacCaig. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

We should all have critical friends. Flyer made much, and unfairly, of "Colin and Sandy", when the hallmark of my Wikifriendship with Colin is that he will absolutely call me on E-Very-Thing. Pulls no punches, has told me many times, frankly, when I was wrong. No one sees that, because it's in email :) Have to look up what you posted about TRM; I have left FAC because of his hostility. (Re-phrase: not so much his hostility, because that has been the hallmark of his editing for as long as I can recall, on any page, but that people there are too intimidated to stand up to it, so the place has become hopeless.) I also posted to that arb amendment, and think they missed the chance to have him reigned in at other places. Getting very nervous now about why the vet hasn't called yet ... so gonna not type anymore ... going to look up that poem, thnx so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the poem :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a cheerful read, but for me it does better than anything else I've read of getting across the strength of bond you can have with a dog, and also the gut-wrenching shock that comes at the end of that bond. I hope you get a call with some good news soon. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

No call yet, and I have to force myself not to abuse of the friendship and call his wife to say, "what the heck is going on, getting nervous?" I know he adores this dog as much as we do, and will as soon as he has something. Have your read Wild by Cheryl Strayed? I've had both ends of the spectrum with dogs (very peaceful passing and very traumatic), but there's nothing quite as awful as putting down a horse, because it involves a backhoe :( Her book has the most gut-wrenching tale of her brother and their horse ... very powerful book that I couldn't put down from the first page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've read a full length work of adult fiction since I started editing here - it's either children's fiction for work (I'm a primary teacher), or reference works for writing articles here. Maybe I should get back into it - I might give that one a try, thanks for the recommendation. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hooray! X-rays show no obstruction or tumor, and their thinking is that the sudden, odd pain and bowel issues are related to neurological back pain ... that prevented her from "performing" shall we say normally. She is on her way home with dear hubby now, with pain killers and gabapentin.

Like you, I found that editing Wikipedia really cut in to the time I used to spend reading for pleasure, but I picked up that Strayed book on iBooks because it deals with the part of the world where I grew up, and found I couldn't put it down ... started out really really weird, and just kept growing on me, so I read it cover to cover in one sitting. Oh, but the horse scene ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

That's such great news - I'm very happy for you. Hallelujah indeed! GirthSummit _(blether) 21:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Allright, I guess the mentorship idea is dead in the water, so I'll reluctantly drop it. But lest there are any follow-up discussions, I'll offer here my ideas on how "friends" have harmed Flyer, and what I believe a healthy Wikifriendship looks like.

I don't have any friends who follow me to content disputes. Period. I'm on my own if there's a content dispute, because I just don't form friendships with people who follow other people to disputes. If they are that kind of person, they aren't going to have my trust. Probably related to the fact that I was attacked by an admin cabal early on in my editing here, so I avoid editors who show cabalistic editing patterns.

But on the other hand, my Wikifriendships are characterized by people who will never hesitate to email to call me out when my conduct is out of line. That's what real friends are for! Too many years ago to remember, there was a heated discussion between two editors with whom I was connected on one of their talk pages. I butted in with my two cents. Shortly, I had an email from Colin telling me I was interfering in something that they were hashing out, I was out of line, and that besides, because I had taken sides, I needed to apologize. OK, so I had to acknowledge Colin was right when I looked at it from that perspective and re-read the conversation, and begrudgingly went over there and struck my comment and apologized. But I also explained myself. Got another email from Colin saying that true apologies never included the word "but". Character, integrity, right there.

A separate example: Doc James and I edit the same topics, so the idea of friends following us to content disputes is moot. But whenever I tried to work things out with him on his talk about his conduct, discussion was impossible because of the buttinskies, who never let us work things out. Interfered with their perspective out of their desire to shield James, because James was too busy (too busy, trying to do too much, thinking it is even remotely possible to put a finger in the dike and save the 'pedia is a common problem that leads to worse problems).

These are the things I see occurring in Flyer's circle of contacts, which is what I think has not served her well. Her "friends" do follow her to content disputes, or respond when pinged to them. And her "friends" are quick to weigh in on disputes on her talk page (in a logical desire to shield her, considering things she has dealt with), which makes it harder for a) others to have a voice, or b) Flyer to hear other voices. This is complicated by Flyer's refusal often to discuss, which only escalates disputes. And the consequence in the long run is that editors learn that they cannot take a dispute to Flyer's talk, as they know the inevitable outcome: they will be shouted down, and targeted. Those are the patterns I see that need to be broken. Choose Wikifriends that you can trust to call you on your own conduct, but stay out of your disputes with others until absolutely necessary, and never follow you to content disputes. If you have any way of making a difference here, that is the kind of advice that I would hope a mentorship would achieve. Engage in dialogue with the aim of achieving consensus, not winning, shouting down, calling in reinforcements ... etc. I hope this helps. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, I'm not ignoring this, but need time to consider before responding. Hope the hound is comfortable! GirthSummit _(blether) 21:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Girth Summit; the little girl seems back to normal with pain meds. Not sure what that means ten days from now, when she stops meds, but we'll see. I'm going to unwatch here now, as you seem busy, or still considering your response (I keep my watchlist intentionally trimmed to ongoing discussions per the messages at the top of my talk page about the tree that fell on me leading to a permanent back injury that affects my editing, so that I have to take certain steps to manage my posting and reading time). Please ping me when you do have time or want to continue the discussion; I have disabled web pings, but will eventually see them when I check my email. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia - I've included a ping since you said you're unwatchlisting. You are to be commended for your watchlist hygiene - I have never cleaned mine out, and it currently sits at (checks) 21,571 pages! WAID once suggested to me that I simply delete it entirely and start again, advice that I might follow one day; at the moment, my watchlist is about as useful as the 'recent changes' feed...

Part of me would like to continue the discussion, but I'm not sure what best to say next. Your comments raise questions in my mind about policy, guidelines and best practice, where one ends and another begins, mitigating factors, how things like that might look to someone who takes an opposite viewpoint, or a disinterested observer: basically, there are a lot of threads there to pull at. I feel as though this would be a conversation better had over a couple of drinks in a convivial and private environment, rather than an impersonal text-based discussion held in a relatively public forum. There are certain things I might want to put to you hypothetically, but I don't feel entirely comfortable doing so here because people may (rightly or wrongly) make assumptions about specific individuals in anything I say, and take it as a comment on their conduct - and the last thing I want to do now is stoke any further discontent, or make anyone feel like people are talking about them behind their backs.

As things stand, my central desire is to see Flyer22 come back to editing, and doing what she does very well. I am not saying that she is the perfect editor (who is), but I believe that her contributions are a net benefit, and I can only imagine how she feels at the moment if she is watching that page grow arms and legs. You have given me some food for thought with regards to how I can best support people in future, which I'm grateful for; I think anything else can probably wait for now.

I'm delighted that your girl is feeling more like herself - have a good weekend. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, on the pingie-thingie, I am kind of resentful that I now have to check my email regularly, but this method is working much better for me. For the full explanation (and how it does affect all of my editing, including sometimes being misunderstood, not stating things clearly enough, having to revisit to fix typos, please do have a look at this discussion. I am just not able to be as clear and coherent in typing as I once was, and I frequently have to revisit for typo fixing and clarity. I am forced by circumstances to find a way to manage my editing time.

I understand your concerns, and don't see a need for you to answer anything :) I hope you understand that my response at the arbpage was not intended as criticism of you, and your response at the NORD discussion was just not some sort of huge offense to me. I do hope you'll think, not in terms of "SG says I did something wrong", rather, "I missed an opportunity to do something that would help both SG and Flyer". With all of the hindsight is 20-20 that I now have about Flyer, I can see the points in that conversation where I "triggered" (not sure that's the right word) her, but I am not sure she sees where she "triggered" my main concerns (how we can attract new editors towards rebuilding WP:MED after a disastrous five years).

On the bigger picture of toxicity is furthered on Wikipedia by failure to communicate person-to-person, there are a lot of thoughts in that same thread about my need to manage my watchlist discussing how the ECHO system (that damn pingie-thingie) has changed the Wikipedia culture. Maybe that will be a safe place to explore our related thoughts? Re-watchlisting your page for now, but yea ... I try to keep my watchlist around 500 to 700 by only watching current conversations. Otherwise, I find I cannot manage because of my back. I have never been a fan of off-Wiki communication, and when I was FAC Coord, it was key that everyone understood Not To Go There, as I believed so strongly in transparency. But I understand how delicate this situation is, and if you would rather email, please know that is OK, and that I have very serious boundaries around the privacy of email. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello Girth Summit. We meet again! :-) I was looking through the CVUA trainer list availability page and saw that there are a lack of trainers with available slots in the GMT time zone. Since I have a lot of free time right now, have graduated from the CVUA myself, acquired more counter-vandalism experience, I was wondering whether you think it would be suitable to offer myself as a trainer? I just wanted to get your opinion since you trained me before I go any further like planning out a course. Thanks. Eyebeller 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Eyebeller, thanks for offering to step forward in this role, new trainers are always a good thing. I'll need to take some time to go through your recent contributions to give you an honest appraisal of this. Purely going on the numbers, I would have thought that a few more months of experience might have been a good thing before moving forward into training others, but if you'd like me to I can take a dive into your contribs.

As an aside, I think I saw somewhere that you were looking to go through the NPP school training. That could be fairly time-consuming in itself - are you sure you want to try both at once? Just a thought, your call. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing it after finishing NPP. If you wouldn't mind could you look at my contribs just for feedback in general as well? Thanks. Eyebeller 19:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, sure - it might take me a few days to get back to you, a deep dive like that takes a while, but I'll ping you when I'm done. If you're thinking of doing the NPP course first, there's probably no rush - it took me quite a few weeks to complete that when I did it. Worthwhile though. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Divyajiwebmaster

This guy is at it again. See Morgoth and Escort Girls. Now editing as unregistered user with various IPs. -- Elphion (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Elphion dealt with, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Fred Sargeant

We are having a problem on the Fred Sargeant page. P12Midori is an WP:SPA created just this week only to edit the Sargeant page. They have no other edits and have repeatedly changed and reverted the article to add information unsupported by the sources, even while I am attempting to engage on the Talk page. They were told by another user, Autumnking2012 to stop changing the article until a consensus was reached, but have continued to make over a dozen edits. Now they are insisting on inserting attacks on the subject from an open feud he has had with Pink News, since he criticized their coverage of JK Rowling, and I suspect they are signing in and out of their account to use an IP address to make additional reverts without violating WP:3RR. Could you come over and take a look at it if you have a chance? You have experience with this article. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, I've left a note and given them some information about edit warring, which nobody else appears to have done. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I had already received a warning and was given an additional warning despite not having made any edits since. This seems a bit abusive. Lilipo25 has made reverts that were DELETING sources that I had added to justify my changes, and all of this to revert to a change that isn't sourced. Meanwhile, she hasn't been engaging in good face on the Talk page and has refused to make any compromise, and she is bringing a revisionist history of the Stonewall Riots that is not the one agreed upon by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P12Midori (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You in fact repeatedly linked to sources that didn't even discuss Stonewall, much less support your version. Then you tried to add the Pink News article from the open feud between Pink News' EIC and Sargeant (Sargeant publicly criticized him for his coverage of JK Rowling and he retaliated with a badly biased attack) which contradicts all of the other sources already on the article, which you are ignoring. And I in fact offered a compromise (using "participant" instead of either "witness" or "veteran") and you simply ignored it. It is not "agreed upon by Wikipedia" anywhere that Sargeant did not participate in the Stonewall uprising, because multiple published sources say he did.Lilipo25 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

P12Midori - another admin gave you a vandalism warning, because they thought that's what you were doing to the article. I have given you an edit warring warning, which is a different thing - it's telling you that repeatedly changing the article when you are being reverted by multiple users is a bad idea, which will result in your account being blocked from editing. What you need to do is use the article talk page, and leave the article alone until you have reached a consensus with others. There is no rush for that to happen - the article has been around for years, it doesn't matter if it takes a few days or even longer to come to an agreement. Consider dispute resolution if you can't reach agreement.

Lilipo25 please don't bring the conduct dispute here - keep it on the article talk page, where it belongs.

Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize; I should have responded to Midori's statement on the article talk page. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, no worries - just best to keep the content stuff on the article talk, discussions taking place in multiple locations are far too confusing. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation

Hello Girth Summit, I just wanted to let you know that Moatlhodi Nkwadzile (Jutas) has been using your name on barnstars, for example here and here. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(A comment by a talk page stalker) That is not the first time someone copies parts of Girth's writing to use by themselves as their own. Probably the most spectacular example was cloning the whole User's page, since which incident I watch this talk page. CiaPan (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pahunkat, thanks for noticing that. Normally I'd assume that it was just a newb who didn't know how to thank people properly and was just copy/pasting from another page, without realising that they were including my signature. But seeing all the warnings, and the indef block notice on their talk, I guess it's a bit late to AGF now...

CiaPan You're right, I'd forgotten about that page! Some people have been kind enough to even attempt to copy my username in the past to cause trouble. There are some very strange people out there...

Happy new year both! GirthSummit _(blether) 18:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Obsuser

Hello fellow wikipedian. I seem to have run into a problem with an editor who disrupts an article to the point of de facto edit-warring, this user also removes warnings and has as of now reverted my report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism twice. As you have banned this user not too long ago, i would appreciate if you would take a look into the circumstances. Thank you in advance. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Vif12vf, hi there - AIV isn't the right place for edit warring, you should look at raising a report at WP:AN3. I could take a look later, but I'm on mobile at the moment - might be faster to report there, it's fairly easy if you use Twinkle. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed this discussion. I've created an ANEW report, and the user has just been blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, thanks for letting me know, I'll cross it off the list. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please consider me for the admin role

As I see a lot of articles are intended for promotional purposes and some are destructive enough. I want to protect important pages that I can edit at any time whenever the changes occur. I am familiar with computer science and information technology, as I am a CS student. Ensuring that I would not recommend myself to misuse Wikipedia. There are multiple manners that I want to work with. Vimlesh Kumar Kanaujiya (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Kanojiyavimleshkumar, thanks for offering to volunteer as an administrator. Admins are selected by the community using a process called a request for adminship. You can nominate yourself, or someone else can nominate you, and the editing community will say whether or not they support your request. There aren't any hard-and-fast rules about how much experience you need and what qualities you should have, and individual editors have their own ideas about what makes a good admin; as a rule of thumb though, people don't tend to support editors who haven't written at least a couple of good articles, and who have made 10,000 edits. I'm afraid that, since you have only made a few hundred edits here, I honestly don't think it very likely that your request would be successful - I would not advise you to make a request for adminship at this time. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Trinity112233 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments at RfC

An edit summary was provided more than a week ago on the reasons for the removal of CCTV related edits. The edit summary does not correspond to the edits at the RfC. 'Broadcast' is a general term used to describe the spreading of information. Please also note the RfC includes a request that involved editors/admins not participate. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, I don't understand what you are trying to say to me above, but I will give you some advice: when multiple experienced editors are telling you something, you saying 'no, you're all wrong' isn't a great look. How about trying 'Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood how deprecation works, would one of you be willing to explain it to me?'

And no, you don't get to dictate where I may or may not post comments. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, Newslinger created WP:DEPS, and added CGTV to it. Your pointing to that page as proof that Newslinger is somehow mistaken in their opinion of what they meant to do when they added it is unlikely to convince anybody. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The point is a source is either on the deprecated table, or not on the deprecated table. CCTV International is on the table. How did it get there?No one has yet to respond to why it's specifically on the table if it's not deprecated, beyond the earlier discussion itself. It seems very simple, like being pregnant or not being pregnant. It also seems that until Usedtobecool responds and clarifies, or until CCTV is deleted from that table, its current status is real clear.

I'm trying to build an encyclopedia, and am trying to stop the shifting goal posts. As in, CCTV is deprecated. But comments at RfC reveal a certain level of confusion, since it's listed as deprecated but editors seem to think it shouldn't have been deprecated. As edited at the RfC, that's another RfC, not the one I've submitted. Is it clearer now?

And, I'm also participating in building an encyclopedia and abide by policy on deprecated sources, on exceptional claims, on BLP, and especially on exceptionally negative claims about living people: Monks are living people; hiding guns in their monastery would break every vow they've made and cause themselves enormous harm; and, the claim is not further substantiated by evidence nor other RS. This all makes the CCTV report simply not credible and unreliable, nor would it be found as credible by other editors as familiar as myself with the topic area. All of these concerns, and others, remain at the current reedited version of the page. I deleted it since the RS was also misrepresented; then added inline citing per policy on exceptional claims and BLP.

So, please, as to the message above: I'm not in any way discussing motivations. All I am saying is the edits and reverts under discussion at RfC do not correspond to your edits at RfC. The edit summaries state my good faith intentions clearly. I would have made the above message clearer, but the need for writing no comment on motivation has been made nor can be construed as implied not insinuated in the foregoing statements is rather awkward. So, I am just respectfully requesting that you modify/restate your edits of the words/phrases that include "false", and re-examine the diffs already provided, and the edit summaries at 2008 Tibetan unrest. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Pasdecomplot. What the above shows is that you don't understand how this works, which is absolutely fine - I'm not trying to give you a hard time about it. What you should do, when you don't really understand how things work, is ask questions and listen to the responses, rather than telling everyone else that they are wrong. As has already been explained in that discussion, that table is a summary of decisions that were made in the discussions to which it links. It is those discussions that need to be consulted when there is a question about the decisions, not the table itself. As has also been explained in that discussion thread, CCTV International is listed because it is/was an alternative (earlier?) name for CGTN, which is the source that was discussed and deprecated, rather than the CCTV network as a whole. Is that clear now?

The statement 'the Sydney Morning Herald published a report by CCTV...' is clearly false - it did no such thing. If this is a matter of comprehension - perhaps English isn't your first language? - I'm quite happy to put it down as being an unintentional error rather than a deliberate untruth. But it is a false statement nonetheless, which had no business being in our article, and I don't see any need to reword or amend my assertion that it was false. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This is in English: 78] "China finds firearms in Tibetan temple". The Sydney Morning Herald. April 14, 2008. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved October 18, 2017. Your point is...? Their source, if you open the link, is CCTV. Therefore, they "published a report by CCTV" since the report was broadcast on TV and SMH published information from the report. It is not a "false statement" nor a "deliberate untruth".

Please, again, correct the misstatements at RfC. The text I edited is accurate, and I adhere to accuracy on our pages, and in all research. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, no. They published a report they wrote themselves, which itself cited a CCTV report, amongst other sources. That is very different to publishing a report by CCTV - I shouldn't have to explain that to you. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Incredible. It's obvious they "cited a CCTV report" in their publication, which means they "published a report by CCTV". Where are the BLP concerns with MarkH21's reedits? And, using the word "embarrassing" to characterize my attempts to treat an exceptional claim with BLP issues is itself embarrassing. Just stop, and stay on-topic. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice on ArbCom request

Hi, just making you aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan exists, since you commented in prior discussions on the issues raised there. GPinkerton (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarNoneMusicIncorporated

Hi Girth Summit, thank you for your advice at the SPI. My apologies for filing the report without being clearly aware of WP:SOFTBLOCK. Thank you for the advice, and I'll make sure not to repeat the same mistake again. Have a very happy new year. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, no worries - don't feel bad about it, nobody has read all the policies, it's fine to make mistakes. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the vote of confidence :-) I didn't mean to try and pull rank on the guy, but that's not the first time he's let something like that through the net. Just needs a second eye on things, I suppose. Deb (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Deb, no worries. I took them through the CVUA program, so their talk is on my watchlist - I noticed the back and forth, thought I might just drop a wee note... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Deb. Please refer to me using gender-neutral pronouns like the software does. I consulted with Primefac and they said the submission was ok. Eyebeller 00:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Eyebeller, I'm sure that Deb wasn't out to give you a hard time. Different reviewers can arrive at different conclusions, different people have different threasholds, etc. You thought the draft was OK, and Primefac agreed, so you moved it into article space; Deb disagreed and moved it back into draft - so far, no harm no foul. At that point, rather than moving it back into article space, I'd have advised you to reach out to Deb and ask what their concerns were specifically. Ask questions, try to understand other people's perspectives - don't go around reverting experienced users. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

They told me why they don't think the draft was ok and those issues were addressed so I moved it back. Eyebeller 09:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, if you'd actually discussed with her the specifics of what her concerns were, you would have known that they hadn't been addressed to her satisfaction. Nobody is saying you're incompetent, or trying to haul you over the coals, but you're still learning the ropes and I'm trying to give you a friendly steer on effective collaboration. Look at it this way - if Deb had moved something to draft, I would always check with her to see whether she agreed it was ready to roll before putting it back into main space. My advice to you is to move it back to draft and ask whether she'd be willing to explain what her concerns about the content and sourcing are - you might learn something. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I do want to learn but Primefac endorsed the acceptance of the draft so I don't really want to move it back but I am more than happy to listen to her concerns. Eyebeller 09:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've given you my advice, but I don't want to tread on Primefac's toes if they're giving you training - why not discuss this whole situation with them what they think you should do? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Had I known that Eyebeller had consulted Primefac, or had either of them left a comment on the Talk page of the article to demonstrate that it had been fully reviewed prior to acceptance, I would naturally have gone to discuss it with the more experienced editor. Deb (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would I need to leave a comment on the Talk page to say that it had a full review? What are you implying about my reviews? Eyebeller 10:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller When reviewing, it's normal to have comments on the quality of the article, and to put them on the article's Talk page, rather than on a user talk page. Deb (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't have any comments on the quality of the article. Eyebeller 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have commented on a couple of Eyebeller's acceptances, but I wouldn't say that I'm necessarily giving any sort of formal training (and in response to Deb, I was asked about the acceptance after it had been made); happy to do so, of course, but it hasn't been requested. I do agree with a few of the above statements, specifically that if a page is moved back to draft after an acceptance, it's generally a good idea to let a third reviewer take a look at the page (or start a discussion about it). Additionally, if I'm accepting something that I'm on the fence about, I will leave a talk page note to that effect explaining my decision.

That being said, AFC reviewers are not expected to be perfect, and a "bad" acceptance or two should be treated as an opportunity for discussion as opposed to any sort of tarring and feathering (not saying that this happened in this case by any stretch, but in a similar case they're being lambasted somewhat unfairly). At that point it doesn't really matter where said discussion occurs,though I would argue WT:AFC is the best place since the draft talk is likely unwatched; also gives uninvolved folks a chance to provide feedback. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)