User talk:JzG/Archive 173

Archive 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

→

Archive 180

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Help or Advice, please?

Hi Guy,

Would you be able to help or advise on a new article written (Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views)? It has been marked as 'a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic', but consists only of a series of quotations from peer-reviewed scientific papers. I understand the matter is 'controversial' but as I have not been given any specifics, I don't know how this applies to the article or how to address it.

I did contact the editor to politely ask for clarification and advice, adding that I was not able to find any systematic reviews or meta-studies that were supportive. Unfortunately I was just referred to Wikipedia: writing better articles. Again, without specifics, I do not know what the issue is or how to address it. Thank you. Carlduff (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, I moved it to Draft to save it being deleted. I have no real interest in that topic, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine may help. Guy (help!) 13:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately you deleted all the quotations post-2015 when moving it, and since the original page is deleted, I cannot recover that work. Not sure how an article consisting of about 40 citations 'does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published', either. Carlduff (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, See WP:SYN. Not seeing the truncation. It goes up to 2017. Content has not changed at all. Guy (help!) 14:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you look at my sandbox you will see it goes up to 2015, not 2017. I had hoped that by taking you at your word about giving help if asked nicely you would keep it and we could put our personal disagreement behind us (I did try; that what why I contacted you, specifically). I get the message. You win. Would appreciate it if you could close and lock the door behind me by deleting my account. Carlduff (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, if you look at Draft:Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views, per the talk page notice you deleted apparently unread, you will see it goes up to 2017. Once again you are being belligerent while wrong. I see something of a pattern emerging here. Guy (help!) 14:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right about the draft, and I apologise for that. I did not expect you to "help" by deleting the article completely, and on the basis that a list of citations did not have enough citations in it. It was previously marked as some kind of "personal essay", a completely different reason than you gave. You are right about a pattern emerging though, I see that too, but I think it is more about attrition and mistrust rather than my being 100% wrong and you being 100% right. Regardless, it's not working out, and that pattern needs to be broken, so I'm out. Carlduff (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, I did help, by draftifying (not deleting) it. You can tell it wasn't deleted from the history. If I hadn't draftified, it would have been deleted, probably speedily. You need to read WP:SYN and WP:POVFORK. Guy (help!) 18:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand the world primarily through specifics and consistency. That is why I come across as such "dick" and "princess" here because things seem to me mostly vague, indirect, and inconsistent, which is incredibly frustrating. It doesn't help I am naturally blunt and direct (no social mask or persona), which is worsened by stress. Despite wanting to contribute, I cannot operate in this environment and don't want to fall out with people. I came here to share knowledge, not make enemies.

As I stated to "ozzie" and you, I was not able to find any systematic reviews (SR) or meta-studies (MS) that were supportive of Animal Testing (AT). My article listing SR's and MS's was not a "personal essay", not 'material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources', and not a POV since it was not selective. I don't think that way. The AT article barely mentions SRs's and MS's, and it is misleading (e.g. the article states: 'it is argued that they are not always comparable to human diseases', but the paper linked to actually states: 'Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews.'). The medical community here are not going to review and OK my article. It is dead, and I am not arguing with senior editors again either because it doesn't matter what I say and I will only piss people off more. That's the end of it. Carlduff (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, Sorry, but that looks like an attempt to Right Great Wrongs. We're not allowed to say "I could not find X" and then write an article about how X is not supported, that's a novel synthesis. You need to start by finding sources that specifically discuss a topic, e.g. scientific dissent from animal testing. It's not my field at all, so I suggested you ask at WikiProject Medicine. Guy (help!) 10:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If you were fully cognizant of your misdeeds in this ongoing debacle - including just how much you have hurt my feelings - you would immediately get on your knees and apologise. By way of reparation, you will no doubt be a gentleman and allow me the last word in this conversation. Carlduff (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision at the article Fethullah Gülen

Hi, I'd like to kindly ask you why you've reverted many of the WP:MOSWTW, but have only given a edit summary for a part of them [1]. The reverted words here include not only "claim by Erdogan" but also WP:EDITORIAL which you have reverted, such as:

• "some observers say" to "some observers argue" and
• "[Secretary of Homeland Security]] said" to "[Secretary of Homeland Security]] argued in" and
• "Mahrous says that" to "Mahrous noted that"

Also reverting MOS:PUFF, re adding a statement quote "In Turkey, Gülen's schools are considered among the best"

I'll be reverting these if you agree. As for your summary "claims by Erdogan" seems misleading, as these are statements from the government of Turkey and should be written as such, "statements" instead of "alleged" and "claims". See WP:CLAIM and MOS:ACCUSED. While the statements are not verified by the Western countries, they are supported by the Gov of Pakistan. Hence have not been disproven, which needs to be disproven for the words alleged and claimed to be used. Best regards. KasimMejia (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

KasimMejia, you incorrectly removed terms that were valid qualifiers of the accusations against Gülen by Erdogan. Guy (help!) 11:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What term did I remove? I simply changed the word "claims" to "statements". Reason being, for something to be called a claim, accusation or allegation. It has to be proven incorrect, per WP:CLAIM, and it has not been proven incorrect, in fact supported by Gov's of Turkey and Pakistan. KasimMejia (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Also you only replied to the part of my question, can you tell me if you're OK with WP:EDITORIAL and MOS:PUFFs being reverted like I suggested in the comment above? KasimMejia (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

KasimMejia, you appear to be a relatively new editor, and you also appear to have a narrow focus on the area of Turkey. MOS is a preference, but it does not mandate the use of terms like "stated" over "claimed" when a claim is not a statement of fact. The article's Talk page is the correct venue for this discussion. Guy (help!) 11:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok well I'll note that the talk page is the correct venue from now on, for now can you tell me whether you're OK with WP:EDITORIAL and MOS:PUFF being reverted? KasimMejia (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

KasimMejia, your logical fallacy is: begging the question. Guy (help!) 11:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll just make the change then. KasimMejia (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

KasimMejia, that would be a bad idea, since you haven't discussed it on Talk. See WP:BRD. Guy (help!) 11:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fethullah Gülen#Recent revision.... KasimMejia (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Banning me?

Hi Guy,

As I new user, I don't have any weight to "throw around", my only "demands" were for straight answers, and I've also made no claims to "owning" any articles, either. You didn't actually say if I've harassed anyone or broken any rules. As for there being "other possible reasons" for reversions of my edits to the Rig Veda article, one of the editors later admitted it looked like I was trying to stir up anti-western trouble, which was the real reason all along ('well, the "nationalistic pov-pushers" are the reason for the strong responses'). Could have told me that in the first place rather than the hostility, accusations, insults, and threats (including from you). I didn't realise admin were OK with that as long as you have enough edits. I called out dishonesty when I saw it - I was right - and I stood my ground. If you want to ban me for that, then there's nothing I can do about it. Carlduff (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bans are imposed after a community discussion, Carlduff, not by an individual administrator. But administrators can block you if you engage in disruptive behavior contrary to policies and guidelines. If you avoid that kind of behavior, then you have nothing to worry about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I was told on my page. And admin here themselves have openly called me a "dick" and ignored my complaint about it, so I don't think anyone here really cares about the so-called "policies and guidelines". My naively thinking you did is what got me into this in the first place. Carlduff (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff It's pretty simple: you went to a page, tried to make a substantial change, were rebuffed and retaliated by accusing an admin of dishonesty. Not a good look. I reviewed your edits. You have edited very few pages, and those distinctly obsessively. In one case you went, in a single month, to the #1 editor of the page, over people who've been editing it for ten years or more, completely rewriting it making extensive use of primary sources. A 15-year-old article. Combine that with the evidence of attempting to Right Great Wrongs and what I see is a recipe for a short and turbulent Wiki-life. What you're doing looks like WP:OWN and a man on a mission, and your escalation to the admin boards has all the elements of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.

Based on my experience as an editor of over 15 years, an admin for nearly 14 of those, it's my view that if you change your style and start asking instead of demanding, being more collegial, then you could be a net benefit to a neglected area of Wikipedia. If you don't, you'll end up banned sooner rather than later. Guy (help!) 08:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I was right and I stood my ground. People like you responded by abusing your positions to lie, insult, accuse, mock, threaten me. You think I haven't noticed not one admin actually tried to talk to me or bother to ask why I accused another user of dishonest? You don't care. I get it that this is all down to me challenging your authority, but that is only because I believe you are not above the rules and policies you are supposed to enforce. Apparently - as an editor for 15 years and an admin for 14 - you think people putting their hearts into trying to write good articles and caring about the standards of their work is a bad thing, too. As for the use of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#"Primary"_does_not_mean_"bad": '"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable".' I see absolutely no causal relationship or even correlation between one's number of edits or position on wikipedia with integrity or honesty. That's why you insult me for being "obsessive" while turning a blind eye to corruption in your own ranks. Carlduff (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There's your problem right there. On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong: if your style is abrasive and you attack people who question your edits, then you get banned. As admins, we are not arbiters of right or wrong, we just put out fires. You're a walking fire right now. Guy (help!) 09:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

'On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong' - yes, I see that. Best you go ahead and ban me, because right and wrong does matter to me. Carlduff (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, See WP:RGW. Guy (help!) 09:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing else to discuss. Either carry out your threat or leave me be Carlduff (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious. Did you read WP:RGW? -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF

Yes. What part (or parts) of it do you believe applies to me? Carlduff (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, What part do you think is about anyone else? Guy (help!) 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

All of it !! You had better read WP:BRINK as well, just a bit further down the page. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me second and maybe explain what Guy said. Of course we do care about right or wrong, but we don't have a right-or-wrong-meter. There is no absolute measure of truth - what we use as a substitute is expert opinion documented in reliable sources. Primary sources are not bad, but they are written from a certain viewpoint, at a certain time, with a certain cultural background, and very often not with the aim of providing an unbiased account to posteriority. Thus, for anything that goes beyond "source X says", we need experts to interpret them - hence our preference for secondary sources. If you are right or wrong is not something we can, in general, judge. We can (usually) judge if what you say is supported by reliable secondary sources. And on the other hand, trying to enforce a collaborative atmosphere by policing behaviour is something that admins are tasked with. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I did also cite a secondary source about Muller when asked but just got something akin to "You forgive if I'm not impressed?" in response. If anyone has something specific they want to accuse me of, then please do so and I will consider it. If I have actually broken any specific rules tell me. Otherwise, again, there is nothing to discuss, especially as this is going nowhere. Carlduff (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, what's missing here is any sense that you appreciate your position as a new user with limited experience of how Wikipedia works, and the status of admins as volunteers, albeit volunteers with substantial experience. Guy (help!) 11:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That is true. Or was true as I see now how wikipedia works. So, either I get the boot or I go away back to my particular corner of wikipedia (and make it a point to avoid particular articles and editors). Fine either way. Your choice. Carlduff (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, no, you don't. Even I don't, entirely, and I have been here forever. Guy (help!) 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Out the door or back to my corner? Carlduff (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, up to you, really. You can either assume that everyone is here for the same goal of sharing knowledge, and that if you ask nicely for help you will probably get it, or you can believe that it's a massive conspiracy to prevent you bringing The Truth™ to the world. Only one of these works. Guy (help!) 12:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a false dilemma as I don't believe either to be true. If I am not getting the boot, then I'll take a third option and just make it a point to avoid particular articles and editors. I sure won't make the mistake of questioning anyone's edits in future. Carlduff (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, you still don't seem to have understood. It's not about specific articles or specific editors, it's about your failure to WP:AGF and your combative response when challenged. That will be a problem everywhere on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 13:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Talking about being combative, can we stop this, please? I had no problems until I tried to edit a particular article and questioned a senior editor. Until that point, it seemed people were pleased with my efforts (views jumped up) and even helped me out by fixing errors and making corrections and revisions, something I made it a point to thank them for, every time. I've never been possessive about my work or undid a revision. I get it that I don't get to question senior editors. I definitely understand that. If I am "challenged" (insulted, mocked, accused, etc.) then I just won't do anything about it. Carlduff (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, as long as you see it that way, your problems will continue. And you can walk away from this discussion any time you like. Guy (help!) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

RSN

Please stop the pointless contest with Andy Digley over at RSN, it is disruptive and unhelpful.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Sure. That means ignoring stuff like this, which started it. He later dictated how he thinks I should be doing it, which, as it turns out, is exactly what I was already doing. So: a straight "no because JzG" without even checking. But I will try to ignore him more of the time. Guy (help!) 18:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: BLP violation warning

Hi,

You recently posted a warning on my talk page regarding a violation of BLP. I contest this warning on the following grounds:

"Inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article" - I have cited RealClearPolitics and Washington Examiner. Since these are allegations and not facts being reported, I don't believe the same standards apply. "The identity of the whistleblower is a matter of fevered speculation in the right-wing partisan media" - Citation needed. And if there is speculation in the media, the fact that there is speculation, and the broad findings of said speculation, should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. "Wikipedia is not the place to blaze the trail" - Again, reflecting the reality of what is being reported is not blazing the trail.

Personally, I find this action tantamount to censorship and does not reflect the ideals of Wikipedia. I hope you will reconsider your decision. User:WoodElf 17:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WoodElf, wrong venue, see the report at WP:ANI. Also: you are badly, badly wrong. Guy (help!) 17:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Is someone trying to get your attention on your user page?

I'm hesitant to remove something from your user page, but I think this edit was meant to be here on your talk page instead, and looks rather weird where it is. --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

GRuban, thanks Guy (help!) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for talk:Olga Tokarczuk

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#talk:Olga Tokarczuk|deletion review]] of talk:Olga Tokarczuk. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 83.10.3.102 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If anyone has the slightest clue what this wibble is about, feel free to pitch in. Guy (help!) 17:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hi! Shouldn't this be hidden from public view? Seems slightly self-defeating otherwise. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It is. I checked with my sock account. Guy (help!) 20:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

So it is, as I was just realising – sorry to have bothered you! Not a type of page I'm familiar with, was surprised to be able to view it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, np, I did double-check because I was worried too. Guy (help!) 20:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo

If you read Fut.Perf.'s comments at the case request page, you will see that Wumbolo is already topic banned from American Politics, and has been blocked for a week for violating that topic ban with the case request. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be indef. They have done nothing of value to warrant the risk of letting them edit again. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, coming soon to a WP:ANI near you, just getting diffs together. Guy (help!) 21:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Next time you get invited to tea with the queen I’m going with you. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notices on BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000's Talk pages

Hi Guy,

They're both already active on the "Portals" thread you started over at ANI, but procedurally, I noticed that you didn't post an ANI notice on each of BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000's Talk pages. So, as a formality, I thought I'd give you a "heads up" to "dot that 'i'" or "cross that 't'". I see Moxy posted an ANI notice re: them re: an issue he or she started, but technically, they should have two notices, right?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, there'd not be any point in posting those notices now, because I've long since seen and responded to those threads.

It's a basic requirement whose utility lies in its promptness, by giving the parties time to state their case early in the proceedings. Twelve hours later, it's pointless ... and I'd be annoyed by a much-belated notice as a hollow box-ticking exercise.

Guy screwed up not issuing those notices, but it's done now. I am sure that Guy knows it was a bad omission, and will try not to overlook such things gain, so no trouting needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Sounds good. Yeah, I realize that it does seem redundant. Doug Mehus T·C 23:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)