I just know there is off-wiki coordination. In 2010, I was an arbitrator in the Russian Wikipedia, and we had to consider a case about Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination similar to WP:EEML (and some of the current warriors were on the mailing list). We knew about its existence because someone infiltrated in the list and sent the content to us.
Can you please disclose that list of pro-Azerbaijani "warriors" to other admins of English Wikipedia, so they, too, are aware of this history of coordinated action? Many thanks Armatura (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the link. I think this is relevant to English wikipedia, too, as a lot of prominent pro-Azerbaijani editors active on English WP have been involved. May I ask what is the best way of making the admins of English wikipedia aware of this? Any particular noticeboard suitable for this type of alert? Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The census of 1881 as shown on page 292 and 232 of the book linked below 'The Cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Commercial, Industrial and Scientific by Edward Balfour, Jan 1885' ascertains that Sainis and Malis have always been documented as entirely separate tribes in census. Same with page 232.
Why is it being ignored, please understand this is a sensitive topic for Saini community and we are being mistaken for other group which lives in different part of India Remove mali word with saini articles you can say that rajput mali started only in 1937 using saini surname how you can say all saini are malies only rajput mali using saini surname not all mali in other different
@Ymblanter:
I am sorry but I thought I was very clear that you must understand Wikipedia policies before continuing further requests. Your requests are not actionable since they explicitly contradict to our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this source is reliable
@Ymblanter:
Akhil bhartia kashtharia mahasabha
Saini rajput mahasabha held conference news
So wikipedia doesnot consider it reliable source as i am banned ,why i am banned because i dont know wikipedia i try to correct article that is related to my caste they have banned as i got angry when i saw. I felt sorry from everyone on wikipedia still no one listen and correct article. you make wronge use of your authority by publishing wrong information to whole world
@Ymblanter:
It seems Vyaiskaya is back to reverting and edit-warring as soon as the protection expired. He's gotten into another edit dispute, same as before. At this point, it seems he's not here to build an encyclopedia, rather here push his own opinions, and revert who disagrees with him, without discussing on the talk page. Danloud (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas it is right they are edit-warring it is also true that they tried to discuss at the article talk pages and have not got any response, as far as I can see.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im not here to push any opinion, but Ive tried multiple times to talk in the talk pages. I recieve no reply. All of my edits follow what has been discussed in the talk pages. Im not trying to edit war with anyone, but a couple users have followed around every article Im on, big or small, rescinding every alteration, whether it's fixing grammar or anything else with no discussion. I am not the one constantly reverting. Furthermore, none of my points are particularly "opinionated", most of the changes have been trimming up the convoluted article formatting, bad grammar, and taking out political biased phrasing for neutral phrasing. If there is anything "wrong" with the updates (which have made the articles actually readable, something they weren't before) then *please,* discuss it. As it is stop following me around. Thank you. Vyaiskaya (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vyaiskaya: It seems Noelcubit is also constantly reverting and edit-warring, but on the other hand, he's also telling you to wait, until you get consensus from the talk page, and your version gets approved, and until then the stable version should stay. But you are not the type of person to listen, as I said you're pushing your opinion, and not looking for a common ground. It seems Archives908 also agrees with Noelcubit. Why will I be following you? You're openly edit-warring, and getting away with it, which is my point. Danloud (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Danloud. Personally, I do not agree or disagree with the edits, however the way Vyaiskaya is going about it is all wrong- and by far not constructive. Before the page was protected, user DxRxXxZx made practically identical edits to Vyaiskaya and edited just as aggressively; which leads me to believe that a degree of WP:SOCK may be involved here. For that reason, the last stable version of the article should remain as Noelcubit has tried to do. Thank you both for your diligence in this matter. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a problematic user continously disregarding our policies. The user started to challenge the last stable version, which was set on ([1]) a few months ago, and with misleading edit logs get contrary the evidence in the talk page. 6 (!) reverts so far ([2]), ([3]), ([4]), ([5]), ([6]), ([7]),
edit warring notice here ([8]), which the user immediately blanked ([9])....
The user since the beggining were told in the talk page the contributions on some part only stands until their balanced, since their suffered from serious NPOV issues, my last edit was in spite this a rollback to a much earlier version, explained much earlier in the talk ([10]), ([11]), along with clarifying the erroneous interpretation about our policies (and not the first time), but the user blatantly ignores and pretends if the situation would be otherwise...after the last revert's misleading, boomerang edit log I had not other choice to ask your intervention...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Well, I provided you the evidence and cutting edge info, at least easily you may see ([12]) this was the last stable point, standing for months, from which the user started edit-warring, so it is out of question to this the revision the page may be fairly reset per policy (and I will do it soon). The problem is the user still trying to fool me on the talk page and outlines a clear WP:CIR/WP:LISTEN issue, and unfortunately nowadays such users emerge more often to tyre the community and it is very disruptive and time consuming (the DRN would just fuel endless discussion of something is clear and still may be resolved in the framework of the talk). I explained even more then three times the user our policies, my duty ends here. Give yourself time then and please follow the events at least, until you may more depth analyze the issue. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
However, they are adding sourced material. I can not just revert this material without studying it, and I do not currently have time to study it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly know you lack of time as I do, that's why I am sad when I run into a user that is pretending (?)/ playing (?) with others precious time and nerves. Actually if you check, the first 5 reverts, the user was removing sourced content, which were double reinforced in the talk by more users (only the last revert he/she appeared to restore anything, since then I rolled back further per talk/policy). So, in fact, the issue is the opposite, the user continously remove sourced content per WP:I just don't like it in fact (so in case of restoration 21:00 Dec 2 as shown above would add sources and would be the last stable).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you, I will work on that, you may see how much I struggle and since how long time, practically around 90% percent of the users addition we let and demanded a little c/e or amendment for consensus, I don't even get why the user wanted to start over...I wish both of us a year with less issues, Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Ymblanter. I will be attempting to reach consensus with Kiengir on the talk page in question, though I would strongly dispute some of his statements above. I was wondering if I could ask your advice as an admin regarding the meaning of "consensus". If three parties discuss and two agree, does this constitute a consensus? (Cards on table, I feel this has already occurred on this page, which is why I deleted a couple of sourced sentences). Also, what happens if we can't agree after a week? Sorry for mithering. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. The part I interpreted as agreement was "All that said, accepting for the sake of argument that Lakatos is a somewhat prominent Roma leader, why is his opinion relevant to the article?" That to me was a statement that Lakatos was probably not notable and if he was, his opinion wasn't relevant. Perhaps my interpretation is wrong, in terms of his overall point there was a degree of ambiguity.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maryam Rajavi
Hi there, fellow editor. :) I noticed that you undid one of my edits after there was consultation and discussion reached via the talk page of the article under the second section entitled, "The MKO is a Terror Org." Can we please discuss? I reviewed all of the articles supplied by the unconfirmed IP address user and all of the headlines and body of reputable sources persistently refer to Maryam Rajavi as a terrorist. Further, "terrorist" is only a derogatory term in the non-academic sense. It actually has a technical definition that can apply to anyone without prejudice. Looking forward to a healthy discussion. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I have made my edits in my capacity of an uninvolved administrator. You need to achieve consensus with other editors of the article (who have rejected edits similar to yours in the past).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's of course your prerogative to recuse yourself, but from that discussion, I see no need for it. That mix of strong polarization with occasional attempts by more experienced editors to calm others down, btw, reminds me of what we experienced here during the Sri Lanka civil war. ◅ Sebastian14:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There, user A reported user B, and I said there is not need to do anything. Now, B reported A for pretty much the same behavior, and I think it is better if someone else takes this. I have not follower the Sri Lanka civil war discussions, but in Armenis vs Azerbaijank there is a lot of groupthink involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering why you removed the "Gay royalty" and "Gay writers" tags from this page. Hadrian is noteworthy because he was the first openly gay emperor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvint69 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the body. Concerning the categories, I would just drop it. It is not particularly helpful, but there are so many people around who feel strongly about categorization that it is easier to let them do whatever they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter, we are still, slowly, discussing the changes on that page, although some some small progress has been made. I was wondering if you could give some feedback here. There has been a large scale deletion of sourced content on the page, which was never really explained. From the discussions going on, it appears that the reason for deletion was that Kiengir feels that the section title "Anti-Roma Sentiment" violated WP:NPOV (he didn't put it like that, but that is as close as I've got to understanding him). If the objection is the title of the section, is mass deletion of sourced content warranted? I would have thought that, even if the text is itself biased, the obligation would be to correct the bias rather than blanket delete. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking at the article, I agree with the sentiment, but I do not understand much in the subject, and there is no reason I should get myself into the content of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, to continue discussing at the talk page is the best. If the disagreement is clear and the positions of two sides are well-stated, one can try WP:DRN--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, that's really useful. I'm trying to steer things towards a clear declaration of positions on those questions we can't find compromise on, so I'll continue in that vein. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's really not helpful to state such immediately refutable statements like as been a large scale deletion of sourced content on the page, which was never really explained, when on the contrary the talk page - as well - is full with explanations concerning that, repetitively, at first in last year September, afterwards when you opened this year a new section, 8 January again I explained twice the same day (and I could count even more), it is another thing you so hardly understand/ignore some things, as it happened yesterday, when you again opened a new section and conflated two different issues, and even you were explained what you conflated, but your direct answer again ignored it again and suggested that erroneus assumption you presented also here. You have to clearly specify from now on if something is not clear for you, even quote me if needed. Two points we already agreed, but still there is some left.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Kiengir, could you please try and explain on the talk page exactly what your problem is with the content. When you are removing sourced content you have to explicitly state a reason. I have reposted the deleted text (2 paragraphs) for which I do not understand your reasons for deletion, if you look at it and tell me why the individual sourced statements shouldn't be in the article, I will then fully understand your position.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you again totally ignore what I have just said, even the premise/assertion of your first sentence is false, as well even the second, since I've been explicit as always. Based on your recurrently problematic comprehension, I will again use logical markers and highlights, and please do not conduct parallel discussions, especially because of the earlier mentioned reason, since you obviously should improve your focus and analytic skills.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry to bug you; when you have the time, could you look at the above article for me? It says it's a town, but the population is so small I assume it must be a village (but I don't want to change it without knowing for sure). The other thing is, the ru.wiki article (Берёзово) says it's abandoned with zero population. I can't verify one way or the other using the Russian census because I can't speak any. Could you sort me out when you have a minute? No rush. ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It is certainly not an urban locality (in particular, not a town), and I have corrected this. Concerning the population, the ref is incorrect (it goes to the 2010 census), I will check alternative sources later today. Likely it is indeed abandoned, because it is not listed at Berezovo, and Ezhiki has always been very careful in compiling the lists. Thanks for letting me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate you having a look. Do you need me to do anything on it once you've checked, or will you take care of any changes that need to be made? ♠PMC♠ (talk)09:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I want to put a retired template on a user’s page. User stop editing Can you put the template instead of me. I cannot set it because a message appears stating that my editing has been stopped by an automatic filter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.206.178.170 (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can make it collapsible, no problem. My point is that in the unlikely event RfC gets closed as keep or as no consensus, these stations must be moved back. Thus, they must be listed as art of RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reminiscent
This reminds me of a mutual friend of ours. Not sure yet, but the acount does provide some strong signs straight off the bat (knows his way around and extremely keen on giving a more "European" outlook to Georgia). Thought I'd let you know. Pinging Chipmunkdavis as he's a "friend" of LTA Satt 2 too. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In WP:ANI#User:Armatura report, I wanted to give an update, particularly on Armatura's recent one-way IBAN, however since only uninvolved editors are asked to comment, I think my comment would be taken in bad faith. I contacted Sebastian about what I should do and they replied that they have rescued themselves from the case and therefore can't help. Any ideas? Cheers. — CuriousGolden(T·C)09:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I can't find anyone else to help. Do you know anyone who can? Also, does rescuing matter in this case since I'm not asking for any action, but guidance about how I could add information, if I even can? — CuriousGolden(T·C)10:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Norwegian name: Posp68 and his IPs always geolocated to Norway - as does this IP that edited one of the new accounts comments [26] (this also follows Posp68's pattern of sometimes editing while logged out).
Continuation of Posp68's discussion insisting the expulsion was not genocide [27]
Grudge against me and KIENGIR, whom, despite having created the account 4 hours ago, he clearly knows [28]
The same IP above just returned to Posp68's other haunt Munich Agreement to reinsert text Posp68 had originally added [29]
WP:BLP would be a good start, also WP:COATRACK. This is a very sensitive situation. A soldier was prosecuted and EXONERATED (= ОПРАВДАН), and you cannot in good faith continue pushing his purported guilt (WP:POV). You also use the word "Ukrainian" with negative connotations in your edit summaries. That is not nice.--Aristophile (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The part you removed does not claim his guilt, but the guilt of the UAF, of which Markiv is a member. You are clearly trying to show that the Ukrainian army is not involved in the murder in question. "Ukrainian" it is not a negative connotation, but it is important to specify that we are once again facing a disruptive attack on the English Wikipedia from Ukraine.--Mhorg (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lute88 is not a user from Ukrainian Wikipedia, they are a long-term user here who has received multiple warnings for disruptive behavior in Ukraine-related area. The easiest is probably to get the to AE and to topic-ban from Ukraine. However, the link they are reverting does not work anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank, I'll try to figure it out how to solve this problem. I also replaced the source with one accessible without registration on "pressreader".--Mhorg (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About Martiros Sarian s edit
Dear Ymblanter, thanks for your attenrion in Martiros Sarians edit. But I want to say somethink about the deleted part. I am Armenian and I did it because in Arnemian history we had not and have not this flag. This flag has nothing to do with Armenia, I asked about it armenian teachers. For more informafiaon you can read List of Armenian flags article. Can you delete this flags logo again? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASTGH NARINYAN (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The flag is not in the article about Armenia or about Armenian flag, it is in the article about Sarian. I suspect the real issue is that the flag is similar to the LGBT flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure all these IPs are either the same person, or at least closely coordinating - but the pool is too big. I just blocked everybody who showed up at ANI after I have blocked the first one for unconstructive editing and personal attacks, but it is not a sustainable solution for me to block every HK IP who shows up for 31h. We need s structural solution, and this is what the ANI thread was about, but it unfortunately degenerated into a series of personal attacks by ip hoppers.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping. Sorry to bother you again but the same IP 203.218.129.244(talk·contribs·WHOIS) is back and stirring up utterly pointless conflict at the same articles as before. And threatening to report me, for what I am not sure considering I haven't edited the article since February 5. Citobun (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I replied there, please review what was done, this is a serious accusation against an editor that was fixing a copyright problem. // Timothy :: talk11:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Covid-in-Greece topic ban
Hi, Ymblanter. I see that you closed this ANI discussion with a topic ban for MadJack. Thank you. But did you give any thought to a general site ban, which three of the four commenters were calling for? It might be helpful if you included, in your closing comment, your reason for going with a topic ban rather than a general block. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is pretty obvious - this is a SPA who tries to push POV in the articles of Greek politicians. Concerning the site ban, generally we tend to give such editors a chance to edit other areas where their edits would be less problematic, but of course a community ban can be considered. I will now make it clear at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Please, could you do something with user Santamoly(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)? This user was indef topic banned from anything related to Eastern Europe, but since then most of Santamoly's edits are related to Eastern Europe articles. I noticed that when I saw user's last edit - Santamoly added original research to Vladimir Putin article. Judging by his contributions the user just completely ignores the fact of broadly construed topic ban. He has been warned many times, but still continues to edit EA articles.--Renat (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
discussion in the talk (you don't need to read entirely, because my inquiry is mainly technical), resulted in no consensus, after an editor on contrary acted agains it ([30]) hence I restored status quo ([31]), and after twice. Two other editors reverted ([32]), ([33]), ([34]) three times... the problem of their argumentation - as you may see from the edit logs, but explained in the talk - they are totally ignoring our policies, not understanding what WP:CONSENSUS means, on the other hand we have more expert sources that are not unanimous. I address this of lack of experience of such issues (I don't stress on myself if they would cooperate on this), because "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo" is clear not just for admins, but experienced editors and I've as well experienced enough to learn that all participants opinion has to be taken into account, especially if multiple sources conflict and contradict infobox template implications (and I even did not reset to my preferred version, just roughly the status quo). Hence I kindly ask you to handle this professionaly, I think noone should be exempt our policies.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
However, am I correct regarding the deduction? I see it correct to restore it until our resolution processes in an appropriate way does not conclude otherwise.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I do not see a formal no consensus close, and then you say there is no consensus, and your opponents (who are all good-faith editirs, not socks) say there is sufficient consensus. This can only be resolved by a formal close.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point (about good faith, even if I would notice by one editor a lack of goof good faith, I have to follow WP:AAGF). However from my "opponents" two have declared before and after the events openly that "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, you do not have consensus for the current arrangement" and after "There can be no consensus", hence I did - and even reinforced - the restoration to status quo ante was fair...If they openly declare of the state of no consensus (so that is not just something "I assume"), is the formal close necessary?(KIENGIR (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Interestingly they claim both, and that is mutually contradictive, since when they said my version would not have consesus (first quote - I agree), they said the parameter will have to be changed (and I did it back to status quo). The second qoute has the same spirit, however, earlier they assumed consensus have been reached to their version, which was not the case. Thus their allegations, the policies quoted by them and their actions contradict each other...hence I raised my latest question.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I tried, more times but ignorance and false pretentions I've got. So, in spite of the earlier mentioned, still the formal closure is needed? (and if yes, where from it should be requested?). Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Besides that, is there any other method? (sometimes I've met with "this discussion is closed, do not modify" tags with evaluation that was not a result of an RFC, but some other conduct (I just ask because the issue is better a technical/semantical one, which should be treated professionaly, and not necessarily by RFC, which may result contradictive to sources).
Sure, you can just ask someone (or post a request at one of the noticebards) to have a look and formally close, but people usually do not want to read long discussions and dig into conflicts if they are not involved - and may not do it if they are involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need to be an admin, or may be an uninvolved editor as well? (yes, indeed, however it's not hard to see not having consensus, and what is the status quo, it's an everyday usual conduct by disputes we restore to the status quo, this does mean any user/admin would be involved and taking sides...as well I hate unnesessary lengthy discussions, but it's not my fault I had to explain more, but the other parties who refuse to hear...well I get you don't wish to involve, the same way I am sure implicitly you certainly know that I have right...since in this quantum space, if we make a measure, two parallel reality may not exist and all probability functions will collapse :-) )(KIENGIR (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Ymblanter, sorry if I take some of your time. I am having a discussion [35] with two users which is getting surreal. With one of them there is certainly an harsh form of dialogue but it is ok, the other instead poses in a totally aggressive and almost unmotivated way, avoiding all my previous answers and taking up any opposite comment and reiterating it for no reason. When I get the 24h ban he\she came to my discussions page to insult me [36], now he\she comes to accuse me of Sockpuppetry [37], and the thing, which in my opinion is really suspicious, is that this user started to be active from 27 January 2021 [38], about 13 days and he\she knows all the rules of Wikipedia, knows how to report users, seems to know everything. Tell me if this is normal, if I am exaggerating. But in 5 years of activity on Wikipedia I have never seen anything like it. Thanks for all.--Mhorg (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I semi-protected the page for three months, no IPs can edit it, and future accusations in sockpuppetry will have no merit in any case. Concerning the content, the easiest would be to open an RfC (read WP:RfC for best practives). It should not be difficult to find reliable sources, at least in Russian, than Navalny advocated the expulsion of Georgians in 2008 calling tnem "rodents" (грызуны, a slur from грузины), it was then all over the place.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help and suggestions. Now I'm trying to understand the procedure for WP:RfC, you know, I'm just a 5 years user :). Concerning the sources, I even didn't use Russian one, because I know that this could raise suspects, and I don't want to pass as a the "Kremlin troll". I simply found 5 western RS that talk about Navalny and the Georgian war (the support for war, or the racial slurs): The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico, RollingStone, Al Jazeera. These users are appealing to the "undue weight" and others, in my opinion, weak justifications. At this point it is difficult to give an answer, we are now at the level of personal opinions about what is important or not. I think that these informations, quite compromising, on any other article of a political figure, would have been promptly inserted. Here I understand that there is a question of political struggle. But that's okay, I hope other users join in the discussion, I'm exhausted (and a bit dejected).--Mhorg (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made my first WP:RfC: this one. Do you think it is ok? And should I ping the users involved? Or I just need to wait their response on the "Dispute resolution noticeboard"? Thank you--Mhorg (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, on the Alexei Navalny article you just semi-protected (thank you for that, by the way) those two new IP addresses with no real previous edit history - 220.253.99.152 and 120.16.121.41, are repeatedly reinstating disputed content that is currently being discussed on the talk page at talk:Alexei Navalny#Did he back the Russian war in Georgia or not?. I would revert it again, but I've done three reverts now and I don't want to edit war. I think the two IPs may also potentially be sockpuppets - considering they have popped up out of no where with no previous edit history to repeatedly reinstate a user named Mhorg's disputed content. I had a look at the two IPs geolocation and they are both similar. Mhorg has previously been reported by me and subsequently blocked for edit warring on the article - just a few days ago. LauraWilliamson (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, you are asking me to be a proxy for you to make a revert you are not eligible to make? Sorry, I do not see this as my role of an administrator of this project.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I though about it yesterday, but there was only one confirmed sock. If there is another one, I think we should add extended confirmed protection to the article. (I did not have a chance to look at it in the last 8 hours because I was sleeping; may be we are ready for protection now).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now had a look, we did not have any new socks. I would just way until the next one comes and then extended-confirmed protect the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casting aspersions
Don’t bother accusing me of beating around the bush.[40] And “casting aspersions again” is literally casting aspersions.
Not sure what you want to say. So fat you are the only admi9nistrator on the project under discretionary sanctions, not me. Look, everything was fine, and it was a reasonable discussion, and then you went again implying I am trying to separate Ukraine from its history. No, I do not. What I care about is the accuracy of information. I have in fact for the last year been likely the editor with the largest number of edits in Ukrainian topics. Just stop commenting on my motivation which anyway you have no idea of and continue working on improving of encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for blocking
Hey there,
Thank you for blocking the IP address editor. I’ve reviewed their talk page and I have seen unkind remarks about our policies.
Hi: I wrote the original versions of the Krasnoi and Vyazma articles. I see that you have done a bit of editing there, and that you asked me to take responsibility for editing those articles myself. No problem; that I can do. However, a few people have edited those articles recently, and they've done so in ways that are not for the better (to say the least). When I try to undo these recent erroneous and low-quality edits, I am blocked by Wikipedia for some reason. The message I get is that "too many intermediate edits have taken place" (or something to that effect). Can you kindly tell me how to get around this Wikipedia block? I really want to restore both articles to their original form. Thanks - Kenmore (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you can not do it technically, and this is also not advisable because you will in this way also eliminte good edits, including some technical edits. What you can do it to modify the text. You can get the text of every old version by going to the history, looking at that version and pretending you want to edit it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought to ignore but when I checked better I felt really uncomfortable. I can send you my location or anything, I am not connected with anything what that editor accused me and I felt regret I came to edit wikipedia when I checked better what he wrote to me. So for that I decided to alarm someone and I saw you in page edit history of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I am sorry for taking your time and to be free to write like this on your talk page. And thank you. Nubia86 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not send me any private information. I think we are on the way to the indef block for the user (who is apparently the same as the IP).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more concern, but I feel uncomfortable to share, but it is persistent. I opened sockpuppet investigation, on couple of accounts and well, that accounts don't participate in discussion and I afraid to not just sockppupeting is an issue, seems just vandalism created accounts also. Couple of articles is totally vandalised, some I tried to fix. I haven't found any useful contributions, from all that accounts. I already bothered you today but if you can see if some can be done, one account keeps vandalizing articles. Here it is: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ShkoDevAct.
Nubia86 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
disruptive IP, ignoring talk page, 10 reverts so far ([46]), edit warring notice here ([47]), did not work, more of us tried, please handle it. Thank You!
P.S. - I wish you health and remedy!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
They look to me like a sock, but even if they are not I do not see how they could be a good-faith user with their editing history. Good-faith users usually do not go on a spree of removing large pieces of material from highly visible articles, including a full restoration of an edit of a blocked sock. I do not see any need to unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A page Draft:Shadab_Siddiqui was created by few people in 2018 then later admin salted the page now only administrator can create the page. I fixed the page and edited it more than two months ago but it is still not approved, so i thought only an admin could remove the salt then it will approved. the entity is passing the notability of WP:NMUSIC so can you remove the "protection" from this page so it can get approved?
I can not review the article, and I am not willing to circumwent the AfC process in this case. It is best to ask someone familiar with Indian topics to review the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Policy question
Hi,
just a lighter question:
- exist such that a user bans another user posting comments on his/her talkpage, even pinging the given user, unless they would be required by policy? (I would assume banning would be tool of admins or at least higher level bureucrats)
- (the second question's validity may depend on the answer to the earlier, which I don't know yet) in case a user asks another one about the same, mentioned above, it has to be followed? (I mean not necessaily per wikietiquette, but by any policy?)
If user A does not want user B to post at their talk pages it is usually considered as "A banned B from their talk page" (even though no blocking tool is involved) and is followed by all parties, even if it creates some inconveniences (for example, automatic Twinkle notifications, or B reports A and can not notify them). I thought this is written at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines but I can not easily find it there; may be I am mistaken (on the policy; the practices are certainly what I have described).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found it, WP:NOBAN, ...such requests should, within reason, be respected... (but mentions nothing on pinging). However, the guideline does not mention ar call it is a ban (only the WP shortcut), but as an ask. Thank you for help to investigate this. Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Ymblanter. I am Cokeah, from India. The user named NedFausa had hurt Indian sentiments by editing the Sushant Singh Rajput Wikipedia page despite bans and blocks. A petition has been filed against Wikipedia to state the actor's death by suicide. If you are a real administrator or moderator, please edit the cause of death to murder because of many proofs gathered by the forensic agency CBI. Please look forward to this matter. Yours sincerely, Cokeah (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter. Thanks for ECPing Aung San Suu Kyi. Can you do the same for Win Myint? The same disruptive edits occurred there today, and both pages have been disrupted to a similar extent. It was under semi-protection, which just expired. ― Tartan357Talk09:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is cleraly not ready for extended confirmed. In principle, it could be semi-protected, but a week long protection expired today, and we need to wait if there are disruptiove Ip edits. If there are edits from at least two Ips, or a lot of edits from one IP, please let me know or ask for protection at [[WP:RFPP].--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
GPinkerton (talk·contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
GPinkerton (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Thepharoah17 (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
عمرو بن كلثوم (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Supreme Deliciousness (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.
Thanks for the support, but i think he will not stop, just look here and also here the New created user will not stop doing the same thing (Pushing for a Turkish/Young Turks POV). Could you protect the page indef.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do not protect pages against a single user. If they return to continue the same edits, they will just get a longer block (possibly an indefinite one).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know stuff
Hi, Ymblanter. I noticed that you made some edits on a page (Betsy Paluck) that I started a couple years ago. Thank you for those! When I looked you up, I read on your page that you are a physicist. I started another page a few years ago for physicist Manijeh Razeghi that I have always felt deserved better than my layperson's explanation of her work and its significance. Have you heard of her? Would you mind taking a look to see if her work piques your curiosity and if you could help explain it to the rest of the world? If so, great! No pressure either way. Thanks again for your Paluck edits! Best, SJTatsu (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. She is kind of in my field, but I have never heard about her. 1000 papers means she is a manager. She likely does not have time to read them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, this is regarding a caste POV pushing sock (User:Punjabier likely) making threats of legal action and being generally unpleasant. You protected the article on 1 January 2021, after it expired, they atrted adding unsourced stuff again here, on being reverted, they edit warred [49], making threats of legal action laced with personal casteist attacks in Punjabi. Today took a jab at Ravensfire (called their father stupid) [50] on being reverted. I believe the article requires protection. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you blocked the user Beanom and then unblocked the user to give them another chance on 17 February. That user claimed they had no relation to the blocked sock LauraWilliamson who was confirmed to be sock of Gordimalo. Now, another sock of the user called Caretaker John was blocked. Now, Beanom did not make any edits since 17 February when he was unblocked but strangely enough, as soon as Caretaker John was blocked, Beanom started editing again today and has restored some of Caretaker John's edits. They are continuing to restore the blocked sock's edits on pages they've never edited before. That seems very fishy, don't you think? Regards. Mellk (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokes! I did not realize the massive delete I made in the Template:ACArt discussion. Completely unintentional on my part. I meant to just vote. Thank you for reverting it. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's edit warring [51], this time not even an edit summary, much less talkpage participation. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You locked the page with misinformation in it. The linked articles I was removing were to an archived version of a NYT article. The relevant section was retracted and does not appear in the current version of the article because it was false. Also, Huldra was deceptively editing direct quotes from other articles. She may be allergic to the word "neighborhood", but that doesn't prevent Netanyahu from having said it in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.42.125 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter, I saw that you changed the permissions on the GameStop page so that edits from new or unregistered users must have their changes reviewed before being published. As far as I can tell, a new user is one with an account for less than 4 days; an unregistered user is trivial. However, some users (such as me) are making posts which are under revision, even though the account is neither new or unregistered. Is there a different definition used for this permission change? Do any account settings need to be changed? Thanks! Sideriver84 (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never protected Gamestop, but I protected a lot of other articles. Presumably you mean Wikipedia:Pending changes protection. Indeed, it is not enough to be a confirned user to have edits automatically accepted in this case. I tried to figure out what are the requirements, and could not do it quickly, but I guess extended confirmed (30 days and 500 edits) would be in any case sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am in a discussion, I get such an answer ([55]), which made me avoid answering until now, I don't feel this "Please don't be silly." remark appropriate. Please judge this, until I'll keep myself on hold. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, depends which meaning of silly we would interpret, however may be borderline...should a warning to be given (by any means?), or I should continue discussion ignoring it completely?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, and thanks for your help on Louis XVII. However, I noticed that the protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous protection which expired only a short time ago. The previous protection was one year in length and the page has been consistently vandalized despite multiple protections for more than a year. Would you please take a closer look at the protection history and consider making it longer? Thanks. I am the Jet Liner (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the page was moved last year, and the protection log was left at a redirect, so I was not aware of previous protections. Now I found the log and, based on it, protected the page indefinitely.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected sockpuppet
Hello Ymblanter! I hope you are doing fine. Recently, I saw a newly created account disrupting Template:Largest cities of Russia. If you see the template's edit history, you will see the new account is not only vandalizing the template with random images, he most probably created another account. Danloud(talk)09:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for adding a page semi-protection, yet there are users like Samoht99 who continue their disruptive editing. This user, for example, has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors (similar to Dwilliamphilip83's edits on WW84 article), yet they think that they are the only one who "reflect what the truth actually is" without any reliable source (they only spoke about Rotten Tomatoes score, which is irrelevant to their edits). Can we also topic ban this user? ภץאคгöร13:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see it as disruption, though of course both versions of the text are unsourced and probably should not be in the article. You should discuss this with the user at their talk page / talk page of the article, of nothing comes out it is either WP:ANI or WP:DRN. I do not have much time now, but I assume they have not been already topic-banned or so because if they were this is a different story.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter. I see you are an Administrator who has been involved with editorial issues regarding Kashmir. I would like to create an article about the ancient Kingdom of Kashmir (6th-16th century, its art, architecture, diplomacy, coinage etc...) here's my start, but it was soon blanked by User:Fowler&fowler [56]. We are having a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Kashmir but it's going nowhere. User:Fowler&fowler is not providing a single source to back up an overarching claim that "there never was a Kingdom of Kashmir" [57]. What should I do? Can you help? Best regards. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk)12:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You protected this article with Pending Changes exactly two months ago, on January 20, 2021. Could you please consider unprotecting it now? During the last month, the only actual vandalism edit attempt that I see in page history is a single IP edit from March 10. There were some other pending edits that were not accepted but, as far as I can tell, they were good faith edits. I don't think the article currently satisfies any of the Pending Changes protection criteria listed in the WP:PCPP policy (Persistent vandalism; Violations of the biographies of living persons policy; Copyright violations). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
user has very uncivil remarks, ignoring the talk page, mass reverts, ([58]), ([59]), ([60]), ([61]), edit warring notice here ([62]), but also spread retaliatiory reverts several other pages ([63])...Please look on it, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Reverted whatever it was reasonable to revert and gave an alert and a warning. Let us see what they are going to do next. The editing pattern does not look good, blatant POV pushing and nothing of substance.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentious - Zakarpattia Oblast, Hungarian–Czechoslovak War and so forth
The user with sometimes spurious edit logs, tendentiously performing continous reverts contrary the talk page discussions where he was told consensus should be built. His tone sometimes there are rude, and breached the 3RR at more instances:
([65]), ([66]), ([67]), ([68]) - contrary the prior discussion, which still ongoing, redux
Meanwhile composing this report, I noticed this ([74]), again a tendentious 3RR breach, no need to detail, may spread to other pages...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I would want to warn you that me and User:Norden1990 have agreed on a compromise for the page on the Hungarian–Czechoslovak War. User:KIENGIR overruled this and then went through my edit history, reverting everything he could. He's clearly claiming ownership over multiple pages now, trying to push his POV through brute force. Azure94 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully protected the article and gave a user a Ds alert so that they are aware of the sanctions. Note however that this is likely one of my last administrative actions in the Eastern Europe area: If FOF3 of [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed decision|this]] passes, which looks very likely, I will immediately stop doing any administration in the area, in order to not find myself in a similar position later.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You, I reviewed this FOF3, it seems complicated to grasp at first glance, however I consider any fair conducting admin has nothing to afraid of, of course all of as suffer sometimes injust abuses, shall be any of our status. The user put me a few personal attacks in talk pages, but I just gave a vocal warning to stop (I see here he tried to redefine the rules of consensus as well...). Now he copy-pasted my words as an answer to myself, and as I see he draw your attention another case where I was tried to dragged in in an unfair way to a loop, which was quicly debunked (and a possible offwiki coordination against me I revealed, some user's by mistake considered I sent them e-mails ([75]), I still wait to reveal who that was), the case the user drawn into your attention was censored with spurious edit logs ([76]), ([77]), ([78]), as I debunked this lame trial, of course it has been inconvenient to them. However, I understand you, in quantum-computing one-measure is enough to acess and oberve the facts, while in WP we need multiple layer's to arrive to that sometimes :) Btw., in the end the result will be the same diffs talk, who try to manipulate, will fail...Have a nice and calm day!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, the user made a long tp rant ([79]) just out of block, I gave a short answer, however the user did not stop with personal attacks like "you're simply pushing your biased nationalist POV (it's not a surprise to me that you're a self-identified Hungarian).". Please decide what to do, IMHO I think it's a bit above that would be simply handled by an NPA warning (practically a collective stigmatization of a nationality, near to a kind of racism, which is prohibited here), hence better wait for your opinion.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Nowhere did I "stigmatize a nationality" or acted "racist". All I did was point out that KIENGIR's biased edits can only be explainied by his nationalist POV. Azure94 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user will not be able to edit your talk page for a week, and I gave them a fairly strong warning. Please note that for the reasons I explained in the topic above I will likely stop very soon using my admin tools in all topics related to the Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's a shame that you won't be doing any admin work in this area in the future as you were the only admin that generally knew about the political situation/history, but it's understandable as the topic is quite controversial and toxic. With El_C also not accepting any new requests, do you know any other admin that could handle reports like this? Cheers & good luck in your future editing. — CuriousGolden(T·C)19:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you really need to reconsider your block of user:Azure94, and the way user:KIENGIR utilises you to enforce his POV in articles. The characterisation of KIENGIR's behaviour by Azure94 is entirely correct, if perhaps a little lacking in the full analysis of the "KIENGIR method". His deliberate provocation of, and eager participation in, edit wars and subsequent use of you to enforce status quo or sometimes false "status quo" edits is leading to you unwittingly becoming part of a pattern of disruptive editing that consumes many thousands of hours of productive editors' time annually. I can happily provide more detail on this, if required, but I don't want to wall of text you.
In the case of Azure94, he is entirely correct to say that a consensus of two users had been arrived at, which should have been allowed to stand by KIENGIR while the matter was discussed. KIENGIR was the initiator of the edit war in this case. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that the behavior of Azure94 was not appropriate, they were edit-warring in many articles simultaneously. I never take admin actions of behalf of anybody, I am myself responsible for every of my administrative action. Concerning my future involvement, I expect the arbitration case which I mention above to be closed today (may be it is already closed), after which I will completely stop acting as administrator in the area.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kiengir is also edit-warring in those pages, and appears to be the one who breached 3RR in two of them, yet no action was taken against him, despite him being by far the more experienced user. I think it is possibly better if you simply recuse yourself from any action based on appeals by KIENGIR, while I do not suggest any bias, your willingness to restore versions that KIENGIR wants in two party discussions and allow discussion to continue forms part of a well-developed strategy of WP:STONEWALL that attempts to force bias into articles through stamina and force of will. Your attitude of reverting to a status quo without reference to the content is not incorrect, but it is being used manipulatively and selectively by KIENGIR.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I mentioned, I will stop acting in the area as administrator, likely today. Concerning KIENGIR, well, if there are issues, it should be possible to get them at WP:AE. I do not think anybody attempted to do this in the last several years.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
your misleading campaign is not just bad faith per se, but misleading administrators are not really advisable, as I told you WP is in incemental platform, bogus representations will be debunked. You have been explained and warned many of guidelines and policies, several times, and still you have a very hard understanding of them, recurrently denying to accept them, as the striking example is of this discussion lately as well ([80]), and contrary what you try to force, you are the one who is reverting even little copyedits, open long talk sections well we have to explain you near WP:SKYBLUE things, and you're stealing editors precious time, like now. The big WP:BOOMERANG you again try to insist a "false status quo", although as linked in the previous discussion, you don't know and don't accept what means status quo (consensus the same), and now you try to back a distruptive user with a nonsensical editing pattern, just because you think it a good retaliation I draw your attention the mistakes you do at several pages. No, I was not the initiator of the edit war, I opened the discussion, and no consensus was reached there, which is clear of any Wikipedian even sometimes less than 1000 mainspace edits, consequently, disruptive editing is far cry from my activity.
As well I did not breach 3RR (it seems again you cite a policy you don't understand). Now you pressure poor Ymblanter, a veteran administrator who possibly see through on multidiensional quantum spaces, as also earlier you did not understand why some administrative actions were taken in other pages. This is what consumes many of hours of precius editing time, your problem and reluctance of understand some basics, which would compulsory to edit here like now. Sooner or later you'll have to understand some editing basics, it will not be a solution to always avoid to face and recognize the mistakes you commit.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Regarding Zangezur Moutains
Hey Ymblanter, I think our question about the translation order got answered. It seems like they also agree to put it in alphabetical order as "it's a common "neutral" way of ordering things". Should I proceed to re-edit based on alphabetical order?--ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider either dropping PC or semi-protecting? PC is currently bugged (see VPR/VPT), so a lot of extended-confirmed editors are causing the backlog to build up requiring changes to be accepted, when normally that wouldn't happen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For putting a stop to the disruption after the one week has expired believe you me when I say the disruption would continue, but once again thanks for stepping in & doing the right thing. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Fully protecting an article for more than a week if it not has been previously protected would not be really appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see this rather substantial block of the IP who is trying to promote and engage in informed discussion at NPOVN . I'd think 48 hours at most and a warning to the complainant to address the many concerns raised on talk and at NPOVN. SPECIFICOtalk17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The are fresh coming off a week long block. I checked that what they call, already after the block, "talk page consensus" is what they say something and everybody else objects, In my book, this is a two week long block.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am also against this block of the IP and suggest to revert it. It seems that you are unaware of the contributions on both sides and just blocked by default. --Pedrote112 (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You’ve called me a specific name in several discussions. It remains as a blemish against me for anyone who may see it and suspect there’s something to it. It comes back to nag at me and interferes with my participation in Wikipedia. I’d like you to remove all trace of it, as much as technically possible. If you’re unwilling or unable to do so, for whatever reason, let me know and I will find someone at ANI who will. I’m not asking for any opinions, justifications, or apologies, but I want it gone. Thanks. —MichaelZ.23:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you feel this way. I guess I know what name you mean. What I can do is to go and edit archives, removing iot with a placeholder. This is technically not allowed, but I am willing to do it anyway. If you mean revision-deletion, I can not do this, it is against the policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter - hope all is well. Thank you for your recent comment at AN about the Turkish villages, and also a thank you for all the page protections that you do too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me07:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're involved, but that means I can ask you without canvassing. Carlos' statement, "I would like to withdraw all my contributions here as you all don't want them. Please make it so. I'm gone." got me worried. In particular, I'm worried that very soon he might come back and try and make this a reality. (as in, Nuke) A case will be filed with ArbCom (if Jackattack and Hog Farm don't follow through I'll do it myself) and I think it would be wise to take his mop away at least temporarily. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: fyi. As Xeno notes in the thread on AN, "here" is open for interpretation, but it kinda reads to me (combined with the drama retirement) as simply all their contributions. The reason I bring this up here and not on AN is to maybe avoid WP:BEANS. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Skanderbeg
Since you make page protections around, can you take a look at the Skanderbeg article. It is disrupted by IPs continuously, sometimes on a daily basis. In the past it was semi protected several times. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you help me again with warning/baning user Kedr26? After the ban, he continued to vandalize the same articles. I've already reported him here, but I was advised to make a warning post. Honestly, I'm kind of bad at that. Would you mind helping me with a warning/ban? --Kram333r (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked his edits history, apparently, he broke the 3RR multiple times and also did multiple edits wars. This is one of many examples.--Kram333r (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another UPD, the user clearly has political motives, he removes everything Ukrainian related from every article he edited.--Kram333r (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте! Можете ли Вы помочь в защите статьи List of Hazara tribes. Написал заявку к администраторам по причине войны правок. В статье удаляют источники, а также не хотят приходить хоть к какому-то консенсусу. Буду премного благодарен помощи.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Нет, тут нужна не зашита, а действия против Вашего оппонента. Сейчас я его предупрежу относительно войны правок, а Вы, пожалуйста, попробуйте с ним обсудить на странице обсуждения, что ему, собственно, надо.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added the article to my watchlist. If they do not leave a talk page message within an hour, I am going to block indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vhugalamahadulula98(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) seems to be editing solely to promote Vhugala Mahadulula. In addition to Draft:Vhugala Mahadulula and their own userpage (which should probably be tagged db-u5 or db-spamuser but I'll leave that for someone with an account), they are now hijacking articles (blank and replace followed by moves) in an effort to get the page up. I think this one is too complex for AIV but I'm not quite sure the ANI crowd will be receptive either as it is not exactly an urgent incident or a chronic intractable problem. Anyway I think it might be worth your time to have a look and see if any action is needed. Sorry if your busy, saw you were recently active, and you've been helpful in the past. Cheers, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have a question based on the discussion there. If someone makes a change to an article and I disagree with it, when I revert can I mention in the edit summary that I am reverting to the pre-dispute/stable version together with the reason why I think that the change is not constructive? Or is it not allowed to mention in the edit summary that the version I think is the good one is at the same time the stable one? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. Of course, the talk page is the place to sort out content disputes. I asked because one editor, who themselves in the past in several cases wrote "revert to/restore stable version" in edit summary, now thinks that when reverting one is never allowed to mention the fact that they are reverting to the stable/pre-dispute version - not even when doing a single revert (of course edit warring is another thing). They base that on WP:STABLE: It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war. Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive. Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version, and the decision to temporarily preserve the stable version for the purposes of deescalating a dispute may only be made by an uninvolved administrator.Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:BRD, which is, whereas an essay, describes the best practices. Otherwise, I agree that a stable version is not really a policy defined concept.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The WP:BRD page itself indirectly "defends" the stable version, where it says "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again". In a perfect world, if one change is reverted, there is no further revert until the dispute is solved through discussion. I do not want to waste your time, but can you respond to my last question. The said editor said that they will report me if I mention in an edit summary that I am reverting to the "stable version". In your opinion, would one admin block or impose other sanctions on my account due to that? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an abstract question, nobody would block you for one revert. Also, nobody would report you for one revert. In the real situation, which I have no time to study, things could be more complicated - probably it is not one revert, and possibly you had some editing history in the editing area, and the area is possibly under DS, and all of this can be taken into account.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the editing history of a user is important. The area is the Balkans, an area that unfortunately suffers from lack of attention. Thanks again for you help. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim Berezovsky: Admin eye requested
Dear Ymblanter, some users like Lute88 and A1 are trying to push the thesis about Maxim Berezovsky's belonging to Ukrainian composers. I've tried to explain them several times that there is no historical evidence whether Berezovsky was born in the area of modern Ukraine and there is no agreement on this question. All the first information about his life before working in Oranienbaum are uncertain. It is a matter of speculation. Anyway I have observed the hypothesis about Ukraine as Berezovsky's possible place of birth in the text of the preamble, but it's obviously not enought for Lute88 and A1. For that reason I would kindly ask you to to take the article about Maxim Berezovsky into account. Ушкуйник (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as the banner on my talk page says, I can not be involved in this business in the administrative capacity. As for Lute88, they must be presenter to AE and get a topic ban from Ukraine, long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because you always revert and never discuss anything. This is disruptive editing. We had some issues before, and I do not see an improvement.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you O Kind Admin. Nice not to have to constantly deal with the multiple/persistent vandal-edits at all the related articles as much anymore. Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Padlock Barnstar for you!
The Padlock Barnstar
You have been rewarded this Barnsatar form me because you protected the Maya Jama page form vandals! Thank you so much for doing that! I would had gone inasne if I woke up, went to the Maya Jama page, and saw edits saying that she wasn't British. Again, thank you!
Здравствуйте! В статье Tatar confederation добавляют собственные суждения (ОРИСС) и удаляют источники и ссылки на крупных историков Mehmet Fuat Köprülü и Peter Benjamin Golden, которые по мнению оппонента 'resource that is not reliable or directly related to Kashgari's writing and can only be classified as a conspiracy theory aimed to distort the original understandıng of the context'. Можете, пожалуйста, на правах администратора предупредить о недопустимости подобных правок. На сообщения от участников он не реагирует, а также игнорирует страницу обсуждения.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Хорошо. Попробую связаться с оппонентом на странице. Если начнет войну правок, то оформлю заявку на странице для запросов к администраторам.--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, thanks. I am just using this to check whether I applied the protection I wanted to apply. If the template does not show up I did something I should not have done.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AN
There is not a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard over an issue you may have been involved in. Thank you. ——Serial11:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I imagine you're still getting used to the "restriction", as it were. It's one I respect. Thanks for letting me know! ——Serial12:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain your reasoning in this one a bit better? WP:NSPORTS (and, as a result, WP:NCRIC) requires GNG to be met, so I'm not sure why you thought this was "not possible to resolve" - it's really very easy. Thanks! SportingFlyerT·C15:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We both perfectly know what this is about. WP:NCRIC specifies when a person is presumed notable, which was the case for this person. WP:GNG says when the person is notable. Ideally, somebody should have searched all possible sources available on the Earth to determine that someone is presumed notable according to NCRIC but is not notable according to GNG. In the linked discussion, there was no consensus whether the person should be held non-notable because sources have not been found (basically, that the sources have been exhausted). This is not first discussion of this type, the issue has been around for longer than a decade.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's correct at all. Several of us did source searches and found nothing and also noted that the rule was that if GNG isn't met, NCRIC doesn't matter, which has been followed by many recent other AfDs, for instance RandyKitty's relist of [[81]]. Also, you're applying a non-existent rule: nowhere does it say that all possible sources must be exhausted to fail WP:GNG when a SNG is met. Please reconsider your close. SportingFlyerT·C15:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was obvious that a number of users in good standing did not agree with you, otherwise I would have closed the discussion differently. WP:DRV is that away if you want a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in total agreement with SportingFlyer here, the argument that "sources must exist" but we just can't find them is not a reason to keep around a BLP indefinitely, especially when this is an extremely well-covered sport in the subject's home country and his career is entirely within the internet age. It's also widely recognized by even cricket project members that NCRIC is one of the worst predictors of meeting GNG, which is especially evident in the sheer number of cricketers who are deleted in AfD every day despite numerous "meets NCRIC" protests. I would sincerely urge you to reconsider your close. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion very clearly has no consensus, because half of the participants voted keep and about a half voted delete. The keep voters were users in good standing, not socks. You are basically saying now that their votes are not policy-based and should be discarded. However, they clearly do not think so, the last keep votes came when all arguments have been already in the discussion. Discarding arguments of a half of the voters in a discussion we call "supervoting", and such closes often feature at AN/ANI. I am not going to do this. You should have convinced the opponents that your arguments are stronger, not me. This is a debate which is running for over a decade, and it would be highly inappropriate for me as an uninvolved closer to behave like thisa. Again, if you think my close was not appropriate, you are welcome to take it to DRV, it is specifically design to evaluate whether closes have been appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their votes aren't policy-based, though. NSPORT explicitly states in its FAQs
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
There was a well-attended 2017 RfC SportingFlyer was involved in that affirmed NSPORT does not supersede GNG, so the disagreement is not the same as it was a decade ago. The issue is the garbage wording of NSPORT's second sentence, which uses GNG vs SNG "either/or" language to describe the sourcing necessary when an article is created -- but this is addressed in FAQ Q5:
Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.
While the nuances are definitely confusing to people uninvolved in sports editing (when I decided to jump into sports AfDs a couple weeks ago I spent a good hour+ reading the guidelines and the recent Talk discussions), in particular to people who haven't seen the updated guidelines lately, unfamiliarity/misunderstanding/deliberately ignoring it does not obviate its applicability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no disrespect with my above comments -- I just wanted to make sure you were aware of where the guidelines actually fall because NSPORT's second sentence is so confusing (since it isn't intended to apply to AfD whatsoever -- it's specific only to newly-created articles). I wasn't sure if the situation was the same as in the "keep" closes of Kant Singh and Aftab Ahmed, which apparently were based entirely on a misinterpretation of NSPORT due to that wording and therefore very likely to be reconsidered by the closer. All other AfDs in the last 2 weeks that had a similar level of participation and !vote split and where "keep" !votes were based on "passes [SNG] ± sources must exist" have been closed as delete with the explicit reasoning that GNG is the required criterion, not NSPORT, and as such the keep votes must be disregarded (see Qaiser Iqbal and Arif Saeed, closed by Nosebagbear; Emily Henderson, closed by Fenix; Obaidullah Sarwar, closed by Black Kite; Mohammad Laeeq, closed by Barkeep49; Shahid Ilyas, closed by Dennis Brown; Zulqarnain and John Ford, closed by Randykitty; and (albeit without the stated reasoning) Mushtaq Ahmed, closed by Seraphimblade; see also the redirect closes where !votes were split between that/delete and keep: W.P. Bailey, closed by RandomCanadian; W. Baker, closed by Premeditated Chaos; and compare to the singular (non-unanimous) keep close on cricketers, which was kept due to meeting GNG: Gerald Trump, closed by Aseleste). JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I also see that I am not the only administrator whom you try to convince reconsider a decision so that it conforms with your understanding of the policies. As I already said twice in this topic, WP:DRV is that far away. Sure if my close was not aligned with the policies it is going to be overturned. Please follow the process. This is not what you are doing now.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You protected this a few weeks ago. The vandalism is back. I do not know what it is about this page that attracts this behaviour, but the exact ethnic identity of the Muslim rulers of Bari has been a target for years. Srnec (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter. Thanks for taking care of the earlier WP:CV of British Chinese. As I was trying to confirm the citations for another section of the article, I discovered another violation, copied from a book. I think this is in the same block of history which you already redacted. But as I cannot see that history, I cannot be sure. Would you be so kind as to confirm this? Thanks! --Caorongjin (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was any consensus at AN, I have undone all revision-deletions I have done and promised to stay away from RD1 revision-deletions. You should be able to see yourself what is in the history.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the AN discussion. It was obviously a complicated situation that had not been picked up for over a decade. Thank you for all your efforts. The history in question, related to the book, is still hidden from public view. I presume it would be OK for me to simply remove the {{copyvio-revdel}} template? --Caorongjin (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I think it would be safer if I answer here. Yes, ideally the case should go to ArbCom: we have an admin who apparently has taken the duty of defending a bunch of users who are only disrupting Wikipedia provided they have a certain political position, does not hear arguments not aligned with their position, and is already topic-banned and continues topic-ban violations. But I plainly do not have time to collect the evidence, I have a lot of things happening at work, and I have a lot of things I need to do on Wikimedia projects which nobody else would do or would do poorly, and this just does not leave me enough time to file an arbitration request at this point. Sorry for that. Ideally I would just be left to do what I am doing anyway, which is 99% uncontroversial, but sometimes disruption is too strong so that I have to react.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Ymblanter, I understand. I note that I haven't looked into any of this beyond just reading the links I attached above, so I can't really comment on any of the particulars (i.e. don't know). Anyway, as mentioned at ANI, I'm a bit burned out from WP:ARCA right now, but that would be my venue of choice. I'm unlikely to pursue a full WP:RFAR case, even in the best of times (stamina and time-investment -wise). Regards, El_C20:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, I obviously do not expect you to take all this. If the system works, someone will do it. If it does not, well, we continue with what we have. To be honest, I am really tired (not to say sick) of all this, and I am sure this was not the last episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be unprotected. There is an active tropical storm in this area, and the article must be updated, possibly by non-administrators. Perhaps the protection could be lowered to extended confirmed. Chicdat
Extended confirmed would be against the policy. I have lowered the protection to semi. If edit-warring resumes, I am not going to intervene.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there were clear universally accepted consensus on the issue we would not have ended up here. I do not think I have a demonstratable track record or closing discussions against consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[82][reply]
I agree. Do I detect a bit of stress with being reviewed?
For fun, I looked in the logs. You are there, but not much, and nothing of any concern:
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_May_23 Your “no consensus” close was appealed and the appeal withdrawn. Subsequent page moves and merges appear to have satisfied.
I have seen you around for many years, but I don't know you well. My impression is that you are an excellent Wikipedian and closer. I would urge you to take no shame from being connected to a DRV on the nuances of WP:NPORTS vs the WP:GNG, this sort of notability boundaries controversy has been battled for the life of Wikipedia. I like to consider DRV to be like a continuing education program for deletion policy. It may be uncomfortable being involved in the exercise, but someone has to be. It's to your credit that you engage in difficult cases.
Thanks. No, I am perfectly fine with being taken to DRV or other second opinion boards. In this case, I myself above, on this talk page, suggested to take the article to AfD DRV. I am also fine with overturning the close, I do not have any emotional attachment to cricket, and, to be honest, I generally (not specifically related to this particular case) feel that it is better to organize articles with such a low amount of information to the lists. What I do not like in this particular discussion though is that I feel that there are two sides here, indeed, going a decade or longer back, and one side appears to be more vocal and is not really interested in listening to any arguments. Even if they are right that there is generally accepted consensus in their favor, they should, instead of attacking my close and literally repeating the same arguments many times, convince the users who are not aware of or unwilling to accept this consensus. Well, if a large fraction of users does not accept consensus, it means the consensus does not exist, per definition of consensus. And the means to convince them is not by AfDing and DRVing articles. For the record, there was at least one DRV which I believe is missing in your list above. That was about a porn actress, I do not remember how I closed it, but there was also a clash between policies saying opposite things which a large group of people was unwilling to accept. In the end I think my close was overturned, but, more importantly, the DRV itself was full of personal attacks against me, pretty much everyone was saying "bad close", with others going even further. Before that DRV I was a regular AfD closer, closing a number of AfDs every day. After it, I stopped and only close them occasionally (this one we are discussing has a close requested at AN). Currently, I am not planning to go back to AfDs, I think my work at RFPP and CFD is not less valuable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ymblanter ; Hope you are fine ; I just opened an SPI on this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kmlsnl54 and other related accounts. But all these accounts are already blocked by you and other admins. So I think I just messed up it by opening SPI. So guide me what should I do next on the SPI I opened ? Thanks Poppifiedtalk07:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your close of the ANI discussion regarding Tesldact Smih. I don't want to edit your notice to the editor at User talk:Tesldact Smih, but I think you left out a critical word (added what I think you meant in bold/italic):
"The topic ban can be lifter by the community, for which you would need to leave a request at WP:AN or WP:ANI, but I would strongly recomment against doing this in the first six months:"
Thanks for catching it, corrected now. (The form "recomment" suggests that I accidentally highlighted and deleted "d agains" during the editing, but it is not that important anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Villages in Iran
I do not mind that you are cleaning up those villages but the effects are sometimes shocking. Yesterday I have cleaned up nearly 1900 links to disambiguation pages. And today the links in template are again nearly 1200. And that is only the mess in templates, the list of articles nearly exploded. Can you please, please, please clean up the mess behind you and not leave it to others? The Bannertalk20:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already figured this out. I can remove dab links from templates, no problem, but I will not be removing redlinks, because this would severely disrupt my workflow.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually after a move or unofficial deletion (often there is no link left to the original article), you can check "what links here" for newly created links to disambiguation pages. But just throwing it over the fence to let other people clean up the mess is not very nice. The Bannertalk09:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, if the alternative is that it won't be done at all, it's better to throw the collateral damage over the fence. But it appears I can fix this now. Do you have a list of templates with problems? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the problems only appear when I convert an article into a dab. I have included this into my workflow, and I am now fixing the templates to avoid dab links. What one can do (I do not know how easy it this) is to remove all entries found in your list from all templates, they are out of place there anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have this morning already fixed three templates with about 750 links. I am not letting my workflow being disrupted. Angry muttering The Bannertalk12:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a gadget that does just that, but it's spaghetti so I'd prefer to fix those templates myself so I can check it's not screwing things up. There is a problem though: admins have also deleted redirects and some templates actually use redirects. I don't have a list of redirects that were deleted within the scope of abadi stubs, so I can't clear those. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should have noted that I am indirectly involved: by cleaning up the mess/links to disambiguation pages your group has created. And what I preach here is simple: clean up your own mess and do not leave it to others. The Bannertalk16:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner: The consensus seems to be that the articles (which previously existed) probably do not meet the inclusion criteria (and may not be entities that should be described as villages), so I'm not sure leaving the redlinks in place is indicated here - though I did notice the redlinks are now present in some non-template locations as well. –xenotalk17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be true, I am not interested in the red links. I am interested in link to disambiguation pages, as that drops on my plate. I have taken a look in the prior discussions, and got scared by it, as it looks like destroying of articles because of the person who wrote them. I have seen that before at the Dutch Wikipedia where a complete pre-cooked vote was held (options: 1) delete everything, 2) nuke everything). Not my hobby. The Bannertalk18:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, I have nothing to add to Xeno. These redlinks should not exist. If any these locations would both exist and be notable (safe bet that'll be <1%), the link can be re-added after article creation. Edit: this wasn't a war against Carlos. In fact, several articles were created by others using the same template. There are no good sources for any of these, that's the problem. (that, and the poor transliteration) If you do have sources, we'd all be very interested. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we are converting some things to disambiguation pages, which are included in some mass-created templates, which are kicking off warnings to a disambiguation workflow? –xenotalk17:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I started to check the redlinks in every template and removing those which clearly were deleted as part of this campaign. On the other hand, well, templates may have red links.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not sure what to do whether it should be left redlinks (if it's a real village) or removed (if it's a gas station, or farmer's field). In the meantime, I did these edits to fix up the backlink issue identified. Probably 4nn1l2 is best placed to answer. –xenotalk18:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that we are deleting articles about villages which we are not sure they exist (or are in fact villages). If we are not sure, they should not be in templates as redlinks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, I can predict what 4nn1l2 will say.. "take out the trash!", or something similar. Let's turn it around: say none of these were linked in those templates. Now someone comes along and says "Look people, I found this list of highly dubious place names for farms, random underwater coordinates, gas stations, water pumps and similar trash and transliterated it.. poorly. Imma add redlinks to all the templates!" I'd say they'd get blocked, not encouraged. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well if residents don’t know the exact coordinates of their village by rote, they have no business reading an article about it ;) –xenotalk12:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the story was that there were two objects (abadis or whatever) with precisely the same name, and they were for whatever reason disambiguated by the coordinates. (Which probably already shows that none of them is notable).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should check history pages to fully understand what has happened one of which is not available to non-admins now, but here is my explanation:
In 2006, there were two abadis in the same province (1st tier), the same county (2nd tier), the same district (3rd tier), and the same rural district (4th tier) with exactly the same name Mohammadabad: [See the last table on the article administrative divisions of Iran to know about these tiers]
One with the id 129449
And the other one with the id 391198
Carlos has used their coordinates to differentiate them (disambiguation). Both abadis were uninhabited (population not reported)
But I can't understand why he has used Mahmudabad (محمودآباد) for Mohammadabad (محمدآباد), maybe a mistake due to lack of Farsi knowledge. These are distinct names and an abadi cannot be named after both Mohammad and Mahmoud.
I have no idea about the other names. These are not mentioned in the census files or https://gndb.ncc.gov.ir. I can't access http://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/ which seems to be a US governmental website. [What is the new address?]
Some other points:
Both abadis should be deleted as they are uninhabited or their population has not been reported according to the latest census (2016). Ctrl+F 129449 and 391198 here.
I've checked what pages have been moved to titles that used to be adabi stubs. There are only six: Darbari, Iran, Keshabad, Bahua, Koruza, Tolombeh-ye 22 Bahman and Lambu. I checked this because under specific conditions there could have been unintended collateral damage from my link removal. These conditions are that another page gets moved to such a title (turns out there are only six) or created at that title (unlikely to have happened) and redirects to that page having been resolved (but people rarely bother) and the links on the pages that link to it looking like a pipe-separated city list or asterisk list. It doesn't seem to have happened at all. I made a list of remaining links. I could possibly get rid of some more hatnotes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jazz, Reywas92 and our host: I did the rest of the 1372 resulting in 3260 deletions. I checked "unlink backlinks" this time, it may be interesting to view and fix these pages: [83], seeing if any of these links are notability indicators for the deleted article. Let me know if anything needs to be restored. –xenotalk03:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, ah crap. Just hours ago I got back on this and compiled a list of what was linked where. Can you easily nuke those unlink edits or may I revert them? I had the link list down to 400-something and wanted to do some more replacements. In most cases, it's something that should be removed entirely (not just unlinked) or it's actually valid, for example Baba Kuhi in 1050s in poetry. I need them to be linked to remove them. (higher risk of error otherwise) I am glad to see though this whole thing is moving forward. Edit: stupid me, Special:Nuke only deals with page creations. I see only 36 pages had something unlinked? I can deal with that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for re-adding back the links: here (Tabaf), I almost started writing an article on a weapon (which might have been interesting) until I realized it was some kind of ocr typo. –xenotalk03:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, I thought it sounded strange. Now it makes sense. I don't think it was an OCR typo. the "f" is right below the "r" on a qwerty keyboard. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me draw your attention to this line from the additional comments section: 'I am here asking that indefinite extended-confirmed protection be applied to both the article and the talk page.' - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They uploaded a copyvio and appear to have been Wikipedia:Gaming the system to become Extendedconfirmed. (quick glance at their contribs shows the obvious) Extendedconfirmed can't be revoked, can it? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted some popular-culture reference names on the page earlier.
Suggestion: Can the protection time of that article (or the semi-protection of that article) be extended for two weeks to a month? Or full protection to prevent any types of edit conflict in the future?
If disruption resumes after the current protection expires, the atraightfirward way to ask for an extension would be at WP:RFPP. Whereas the chance is very high, we do not protect articles preemptively.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your semi-protection ended on April 25th. Of the 14 human edits since then, five have just been to misgender them, plus a sixth that added content but misgendered them in doing so; of the remaining nine, six were just fixing their pronouns. So, only 2½/14 were about something other than their pronouns. Misgendering versions of the article account for 13h54m of the 11 days since the protection expired, by my math. In light of that, do you think restoring semi, or applying pending changes, would be warranted? -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi.00:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ymblanter, the Sham Ennessim article you put a full protection is the version which takes a side in the dispute & contains strong bias & too much false information. The pre-edit war version is the one on April 1 2021 in the history. If you’re going to put the page on full protection can you revert to that version first? Also how long will this be on full protection? Thanks.
No, I will nor revert it, see WP:WRONGVERSION. Please discuss the issues at the talk page of the article. The protection is for a week, but if edit-warring starts after the protection has expired, I will have to reprotect.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-wiki stuff
Hi Ymblanter, as you recently blocked one sock and as you are an administrator on Commons as well, I was wondering if you would you be able to take a look over there regarding [87]. Thanks, CMD (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm afraid I find Commons more difficult to navigate than here. If needed, is there a semi-protection type of system that can be requested? CMD (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should be discussed at the talk page, but your edit has broken the page history. Please move properly, using the move tab.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, since the Balkan topic areas are being under watch, I am asking for an admin oversight and decision regarding recent edits by User Alltan. It seems that they conducted a series of edits regarding Tribes of Montenegro meaning they are posting some very contorversial edits putting them under part of Albanian tribes series which can been seen in Bratnozici, Kuci, Piperi and Vasojevici tribe. I have challenged them on Vasojevici talk page with 7 different sources,</ref>|last=Petersen|first=Roger D. |publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2001|isbn=9781139428163|p=232}}</ref>[1][2][3][4][5][6]}}.sources that are opposing their edits and are previously large discussed on same TP by other editors [[91]], but I cannot reach an agreement.
All that I am asking is that if we have tribes that belong to Montenegro region and were or are of multiethnic origin that we do not put them under Albanian tribe series sidebar because it is misleading, those tribes went under centuries long cultural and ethnic changes (migrations, marriages) and as we can see part of disputes. Can something be done about it? User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC
By the last edit I don't see they are willing to cooperate, [[92]] I think that the best way is that admin decides. I don't even wish to remove their edits even though lot of them are questionable, but the "Albanian tribe part of series sidebar". I think that giving the sources and the article page it is reasonable. User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC
No admin would ever go through all these walls of text. Especially when the links are not online. If you are sure they do not edit according to the policies and you do, you should file a request at WP:AE, there at least people would read it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to go through WP:AE because that usually means asking for some sanctions, I do not wish to post that on editor Alltan, they are a valuable member of wikipedia. Just wanted to evade edit warring and to ask to remove that sidebar, if it is possible to do it by admin great based on sources great. If not well someone else is going to challenge it in few months, that is why maybe it would be wise to reach stable version by admin User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC — Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? I'm sorry for cluttering your talk page YM, but the user in question has not respected my wish to continue discussing and instead seems to be admin-fishing to get me punished or whatever. The editor in question has:
not provided a single source which call the tribe in question of Slavic origin (check them, I have and can confirm this and have asked him to quote one on multiple occasions)
Not answered a single question of mine regarding the reasoning behind his edit suggestions, instead preffering to go over the same points again ang again.
accused me of bad-faith and misleading edits even though he can freely check and see that my edits are not so (I explalined this multiple times on the tp)
literally asked the admins to come to an agreement on his behalf, while refusing to answer my questions "Yes I want that admins decide this because it is obvious that you are ignoring sources. If they are saying that they are Montenegrins or Serbs and you claim that they are Albanians then decision must be made by someone neutral."
How come he just skips the discussing part and just jumps right into name calling? I don't think the user is editing in good faith, its more of a JDL case. However if he does wish to continue discussing in a respectful manner I will very much oblige Alltan (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I am asking is that you remove Albanian tribe part of series sidebar based on discussion on TP, since you also confirmed that they are Serbs or Montenegrins, also your agressive approach shows lack of cooperation an d calling Cvijic an "Albanophobe Jovan Cvijic" means you are not willing to acknowledge authors with different opinions. User:Theonewithreason (talk), 17.May 2021 (UTC
from wikipedia article on Cvijic: Cvijić' s scientific impartiality has been criticized for his support of Serbia's political advancement;[10] his geographic work was used to scientifically justify politics of territorial expansion and further territorial claims.[10]
... For economic independence, Serbia must acquire access to the Adriatic Sea and one part of the Albanian coastline: by occupation of the territory or by acquiring economic and transportation rights to this region. This, therefore, implies occupying an ethnographically foreign territory, but one that must be occupied due to particularly important economic interests and vital needs.[10]
and another quote: According to Croatian historian Igor Despot, Cvijić's studies of Albanians depicted them as an isolated people with no culture. His research was published into Serbian press which resulted in a chauvinistic denial of any great value of Albanian culture, depicting them as armed robbers ravaging through Christian cities.
So no, you can not use Cvijic. If you don't know why after reading the above maybe you should not edit articles related to Albanians. Cvijic was one of the biggest Albanophobes of his time, so although I respect your opinion on him, he has no place on wikipedia. Anyways come to the TP so we dont clutter this one too much Alltan (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Horvat, Branko (1988). Resistance and Rebellion: Lessons from Eastern Europe. University of Michigan. p. 80. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^Ćorović, Vladimir (1989). Resistance and Rebellion: Lessons from Eastern Europe. University of Michigan. p. 24-25. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^Cattaruzza, Amaël (2005). Le Monténégro entre union et indépendance : essai sur une géographie du nationalisme (PhD) (in French). Paris-Sorbonne University.
Semi-protection: Sir/Madam, this article need to be protected. High level of vandalism, despite multiple attempts to stop it.Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I only see one non-autoconfirmed user editing in May, and some reasonably good edits from IPs in April. This is not a protection situation for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hromadas?
Hello, Ymblanter,
It looks like an editor has emptied out some categories involving Hromadas, a Ukrainian term I am not familiar with, and I saw that you edited one of the categories that I looked at. I was hoping you could give a quick look at the last additions to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and judge whether these categories have been emptied out-of-process. The editor, Delasse, also created Category:Zolotyi Potik settlement hromada which another editor has tagged for speedy deletion which is unusual for a category. Thanks for any insight you can offer. LizRead!Talk!02:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Liz. Hromada is the third level of the administrative division in Ukraine (below Oblast and Raion), which was introcuced in 2020. Before it was introduced, there was something called amalgamated hromada, many (if not all of these) became hromadas. I guess the editor wants to move categories of amalgamated hromadas to the categories of hromadas but is not familiar with the process. I will try to engage with them in their talk page, could you please hold the categories for the moment (not process speedies). Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DS 2021 Review Update
Dear Ymblanter,
Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admin activity in AA and other ex-USSR topics
Dear Ymblanter.
On 27th March 2021 you wrote:
I have stopped all administrator activity in the areas I edit — everything related to the countries of the former Soviet Union. I may occasionally make fully uncontroversial actions, such as blocks for and protections against obvious vandalism and obvious BLP violations.
Then, on 19th May 2021, after proposing a controversial ban in AA topic (which is ex-USSR topic), you wrote:
Ok, fine, I will not deal with Armenian-Azerbaijani mud throwing anymore. I do not have any personal interest in this conflict. I have a lot of other things to do.
Could you kindly clarify what are your long-lasting plans about AA topic; are you going to stick to the declared plans? In your mind, do you allow a chance to the possibility that constantly accusing Armenian and Azerbaijani editors of "mud throwing" and constantly expressing a wish "to ban them en masse" may be perceived as systemic bias and intolerance towards both sides, that makes any significant activity of yours in that topic highly controversial?. Please take this as critical appraisal of your activity in this particular topic; this is not an attack on your personality. Some introspection and reflection hasn't harmed anybody yet.
Thanks, I know my rights. I also recognise your right to disagree with me. It is not clear what are you "totally" disagreeing with, however, as you did not answer my question - what are your future plans about AA topic - are you going to keep your word? Yes or no.
You know, you ask loaded questions. I do not think I can answer a loaded question with yes or no. For a starter, I left indeed a message on the top of this page on March 27. I believe after leaving this message I have taken exactly zero administrative actions in the areas I indicated. I have never hinted I will start taking these actions. What are the reasons you are asking me whether I am going to keep my word if I have never broken my word? If the ArbCom would revise their decision and remove this point I am referring to, or if the policies change, I may start doing administration in these areas again.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, "cannot answer a question" is some sort of answer as well I guess. The reason why I asked the question were your repetitive conclusions about Armenian-Azerbaijani "mud throwing" and your repetitive wishes "to ban them en masse", which, as I said, may be perceived as systemic bias and intolerance towards both sides - you disagree but I do perceive them as such and I am sure there are others - I came to you to make you aware of that, instead of rushing to WP:AN. Separately from your 27th March note about ArbCom, you later wrote that you do not have any personal interest in AA conflict and that you are not going to engage with that topic anymore; I hope you will stick to your word, both as an admin and as a regular user. Good luck.
This is not what I said. I said that if say an Azerbaijani user A would in the umpteenth time show up at ANI trying to get an Armenian user B blocked, or viceversa, and the discussion would go to several screens yet again, I am not going to intervene. I am also not going to block an Armenian (or Azerbaijani, or Paraguayan, for that purpose) user C who edits disruptively an article on Azerbaijan or Armenia. However, I do not see why I can not open an ANI/AN/AE topic on disruptive users myself, bring sufficient arguments, and have the user topic banned. If you are right, and I am biased, then surely nobody is going to support me, and eventually I am going to be topic-banned myself from the topic area. However, so far I see that in the Serbian-Croatian conflict, where I proposed to establish a very low tolerance bar for violations, it worked, a few users were topic-banned, and the disruption has been significantly reduced. I do not see why this would not work in the Armenian-Azerbaijani topic area, but it is up to the community of course. Apparently it is not yet fed up with this disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You also wrote on 18 May 2021
Fine, as I already said, I am going to ignore future AA threads.
You did not write "I am going to ignore them unless X, Y or Z". As a physicist (a person versed in exact sciences), I am sure you write what you mean, rather than writing "A" but meaning "B". And as an admin (a user thought to be credible enough to get a high rank in Wikipedia community), I hope you will stick to your own words, otherwise they may lose their current high value. As for "blocking en masse" I don't know how would you feel like if somebody suggested to block Russian users, or Jewish users, or Black users or LGBT users on masse, for example. Just some food for reflection. Bringing an admin to WP:AN should not be the primary way of letting them know that what they say (and how they say it) may hurt others. Good luck. --Armatura (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I say is that there is a lot of disruption of this editing area, and users disruptively editing must be blocked en masse (even though the expression is coming from other user, but let us not discuss the details). I do not see what is wrong with this. This is the decision of the Arbitration Committee, if you think it describes the situation incorrectly you can appeal. I do not think I have ever proposed to block or sanction in any other ways users who are not editing disruptively. If someone suggests to block disruptively editing Russian users, I would certainly support, and I have done it myself in the past in the the framework of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as well as in some other situations. And, yes, I am going to ignore pointless AA threads, until unless something changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perceived lack of good faith and stereotyping towards Armenian and Azerbaijani users (I am sure based on your previous negative experiences) is what's wrong. If you stick to the "block disruptive users" correct language that you used above there would be no questions. However, calling Armenian and Azerbaijani users who engage in disputes "warriors" and suggesting to topic-ban them en masse sounds incorrect to me. There are no "warriors" in Wikipedia, there are users and users who express disruptive behaviour (regardless of nationality). That kind of language ("pointless AA threads" belongs to the same language) incites emotions instead of calming everybody down in already heated disputes and raises questions about emotional neutrality to the topic and capacity to act as a neutral mediator / proposer. Hence I think you made a right decision to not engage in those threads anymore. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, that IP is removing content and modifying content in a way that it counters with what the given source says. Examples include [93][94][95]. It has already been warned by another editor but disruption continues. The IP range was blocked some time ago, but after it expired the disruption resumed by several IPs. Can you do sth? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They have stopped an hour ago and is unlikely to come back, and I do not feel confident to block the range. The easiest is to open an ANI topic and present a few diffs clearly demonstrating disruption (possibly even explaining why), and to ask to block the range.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your advice. As a note, they came back and made another disruptive edit 15 minutes ago [96] - as the Demographics section makes it obvious, not all people there are Greeks. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. No worries about reverts, other editors always revert the disruption made on those articles. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and forgive me for raising this issue again but it has been done persistently for almost a year by the same person 1. A few months ago the @El C: admin made a range IP block and it seemed had solved but as soon as the restriction was over the editing by this person started again using different IPs. These articles have a significant problem as they are in a so-called minority area wherein some of these villages are populated by a Greek community. How many is their exact number for each village? No one knows because the censuses made by the Albanian state are refused to be accepted as a reliable source by other members in Wikipedia and in many cases, it is "tolerated" even by members who have a different opinion about that. These village articles were created only to show that there is a Greek community in these areas and this is usually done only for those villages that have one, based on a private study by Kallivretakis, Leonidas (1995). The same study mentions villages that have a totally Albanian population, in some cases Christian and in others Muslim. This has led to the creation of articles for the latter, creating a certain balance because otherwise, they pave the way for irredentist and nationalist theories. And here begins the problem we are currently facing. Every village that has an Albanian population or with an absolute Albanian majority is attacked by such IPs by entering names in the Greek language, inserting texts that do not match the source, etc. while in those that have a Greek community deleting the use of the Albanian language which is the official language of the state where these villages are part of and as is common use in every similar article on Wikipedia ... especially in the Balkans.
I do not know what may be the best solution as long as the IP range block failed to protect it from such edits. Blocking IP one by one is also tedious for everyone, both for the admins who block it every one per week and for us having to undo the edits. So two may be the most permanent solutions. 1) Merge several articles of villages into a single article based on the highest administrative division, i.e Municipality. Maybe an article called "Villages in the municipality of Finiq" where the villages can be listed. 2) Page Protection for all villages for at least 1 year, hoping that this person has lost the passion to make such edits.Bes-ARTTalk09:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just request a range block at ANI (you can also mention this discussion). I am not sufficiently technically apt to apply range blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I can not do anything here. Most of these edits are old, and today's edits are not exactly the same as those of the socks, definitely not to an extent which would give me confidence to block the IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, would you please ask Noteduck to stop fixating on my edits. You warned them about AP2 civility etc on 25 March [[97]]. Since that warning the majority of Noteduck's edits (~80%) have been either reverting changes of mine, commenting on my talk page comments, trying to campaign other editors against me, or adding to a long list of perceived sins (POLYMIC issue here [[98]]). My feeling is they are fixated on me as a type of revenge for the earlier AE about them. I'm hopeful that a "knock it off" suggestion will be sufficient vs taking things to the drama and deletion boards. Do you have any suggestions? Springee (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly because I was the one warning them I am not the right person to do anything in this situation. I would say if you feel your arguments are good ANI is a way to go.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, this is so baseless and lazy. Ymblanter, just have a look at my recent contributions[99] to Wiki that show I am contributing in all kinds of constructive ways. Springee, it might be best to look beyond your fixations. I'll continue to revert and cull unwarranted material where it needs to be done Noteduck (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Noteduck (and several admins) seem to not get is that Springee is a POV-pusher that is not simply involved in tendentious editing, but aggressively pursues critics who point out their behaviour. This has resulted in several claims from Springee that I am hounding him, despite the fact that I am using a single IP so as to not present the appearance of multiple IPs. Springee has blanked my criticisms prior, which is another reason why he has my own attention. It is readily apparent that Springee is an activist editor that seeks exemption from Wikipedia's own rules to push his own POV largely related to pages concerning far-right media. Since the arbitration request went stale after being derailed by a rogue admin, Springee has filed multiple complaints of critics that pointed out his misbehaviour, Noteduck included. Since learning that blanking my criticism wouldn't work, Springee has baselessly accused me of being a sockpuppet of random users they've feuded with in the past, undoubtedly to try to censor criticism of that same misbehaviour. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I blocked them for 3 months, though I am not really looking forward, the last sock really was a huge waste of time.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to watchlist your talk page, or I'd have responded sooner. Yes, I agree completely. What's worse is that they knew (or stumbled upon) the right button to push to get other editors to jump on board with their time wasting. Hopefully no-one will latch onto their last comment there and bring the issue back up before the thread gets archived. I regret responding, myself. I'll keep an eye out. This editor has some tells that I think I could spot, so I'll SPI any new accounts if they trick my radar, maybe save you the trouble of blocking again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ymblanter. I found a possible case of sockpuppetry on Dhaka, and I am quite sure that both of the new two accounts above belong the same user. The sockmaster (Hk12hk) disrupted the article first, but when I reverted his edit, he created another account (Dhakathecity) to revert me. Please check their edit history. Danloud(talk)16:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential POV-pushing, virtually always marked as minor-edits
I noticed that a couple weeks ago, you reverted a contentious edit [100] by user Cogitamus Credimus, and I have just now reverted what I would call a real "doozie" of an edit [101]. I think that you may find a pattern of POV-pushing by the user, as well as incorrectly marking edits as "minor". I'm notifying you so that more eyes can be on the situation, in case I am reading into this incorrectly; and also because I have no interest in using Twinkle or anything like that. BirdValiant (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They have already been warnbed about minor edits, and gave them now a ds alert, let us see how the situation would develop.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, those articles have been requested by Tartan357, because any admins other than you can be declined the request because most admins are not familiar with arbitration enforcement and only protecting for distruptive edits or vandalism reasons, thanks. 36.77.80.201 (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but your persistent pushing suggests I am impartial and should not be involved with these articles. Whereas I am pretty sure I am not impartial, I will indeed leave them to another administrator. I am pretty sure I am not the only one familiar with ARBPIA.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I accidentally replied at the talk page and not here. Anyway, I do not think this is a productive discussion to continue. Any confirmed user can edit the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy notice, RfC: Azov Battalion
Good evening, I would like to notify you that a new RfC on Azov Battalion has just started. I am sending you the message because you participated in the 2015 RfC and the topic might be of interest to you. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you removed a nickname from the Cody article, suggesting it was unsourced. There is a link to the source in question at the bottom of the infobox. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can not really understand what article you are talking about, but if the nickname is reliably sources you can just restore it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter, I'm not an expert on these RFCs, so I wanted to ask you a question. A new RFC[106] is being made on the definition to be given to the Azov Battalion, the last one was in 2015. May I ask if it is correct to ping all the participants of the old RFC? Shouldn't only users who have participated in the most recent discussions be pinged? Thank you.--Mhorg (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually considered ok to ping the users participating in the past RfCs, and also to post on Wikiprojects. Of course the users should not be pinged selectively (for example only those who opposed the RfC, otherwise it is canvassing).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. A page you have protected on the grounds of an edit war encountered editing by a hardly-used dormant/sleeper account in a volatile topic area where special sanctions now apply. In my experience this tends to indicate puppetry. I have no ideas about which might be a master account, so I'm not sure that a sock investigation filing is the right approach. Given you have now policed the article, perhaps it is something you would want to look into with checkusers in case you can nip something in the bud? I am not yet naming names to avert drama. --Chumchum7 (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I have protected the article it means most likely I have never seen it before, and I do not have any special knowledge about the accounts editing it. Dormant or new-ish accounts appearing out of nowhere to edit protected articles or to continue edit-warring is unfortunately a common problem; if the master can not be guessed, the only way is to consider the account on their own merit. I would say ANI is the way to proceed, thouth I must add this would be exactly the tyoe of request which is likely to get archived without anybody have acted on it. I do not have any special relation with checkusers, nothing to see there in this respect.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Superficially, I would say this is not canvassing, but it is difficult to come to many conclusions without reading all the background of the incident, and, unfortunately, I do not have time for this just now.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: thanks as always for your answers. Since I would not want to incur sanctions, may I ask you where it would be appropriate to ask this same question for a definitive answer?--Mhorg (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: what Mhorg does is not canvassing. More important, I think their question [108] is not appropriate for posting at Village pump and is not really a question about canvassing. Is that what you wanted him to post on Village pump? If not, could you please explain this to him? Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think why the question is not appropriate for the village pump (though the answer would require a user who is willing to spend some time to dig into diffs, which so far has not happened).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You protected El Salvador in response to my request, which was in reaction to a barrage of premature attempts to add Bitcoin as an official currency. Well, the law to make Bitcoin legal tender there has passed and the article's been edited to reflect it, so the reason for protecting the page has vanished. I thought I'd let you know should you want to remove the protection before its June 13 expiration. Largoplazo (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bratonožići (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article has had a large number of reverts the last 3 days. Two editors have tried to remove well-sourced content and add content that is either unsourced or sourced to outdated sources of the early 20th century. Can you do sth, a message to them or a short page protection, if possible? One of them has participated in tp discussion, while the other, CrnogoracPravi2001, has not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully protected the page for 3 days and indefinitely blocked one account. I do not think it is my role as uninvolved administrator to mediate the discussion, but I hope the other user will go to the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your input. The other editor has made a tp comment, I have explained to them some Wiki rules with links to relevant Wiki guidelines, and I expect them to reflect on the issue. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accidentally flagged posts as vandalism
Hi Ymblanter, hope you are well. I have made a bit of a mistake, I recently activated twinkles on my preferences, which changes the way history was viewed. I noticed a red "Vandalism" tag on the side of some comments while I was checking to see if a user had neutrally notified other users in an AfD discussion. I pressed it to see what it meant, and found it reverted their comments. When I realised my mistake I undid my own edit, so the pages look normal now. What should I do to avoid the user getting flagged as a vandal? Or is it unconnected to any automatic process?
This happens, no problem. Go to the talk page of the affected user(s) and explain what the problem was (I usually apologize when I am in this situation). Nothing more needs to be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in a recent post a user accused me of forum shopping in an AfD discussion. This is a mischaracterisation of what occurred, which was me asking a couple of procedural questions , after following the advice in the policy on seeking a merger before nominating for deletion.
No, you may not redact it (unless it is smth really outrageous, but even in this case it is better than other users would redact it). You can reply and explain your point of view.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I saw a redaction like this somewhere else, one user accused another of making a personal attack by saying other users were basing their comments on a political motivation, and wasn't sure if it was ok or not. Per your comments that seems to be unacceptable too. I'm not going to get into a discussion with the other user on this, because they basically love to get into personal stuff, and I can't be bothered with it. Best to stick to policy, I think.
Because when extended confirmed protection expires, if pending changes is not there, the article becomes unprotected. We know it should be by default semi-protected, and thus pending changes acts as insurance until someone notices the article has not been protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered user edit-warring
Hello, Ymblanter!
I just want to quickly make you aware of an unregistered user (IP 46.193.171.201) who is edit-warring on the Oradea and Timisoara articles. Long story short, he's for some reason attempting to remove a reference to the fact that the two cities are located in the historical region of Transylvania. Not sure what his reasons are, but the articles Transylvania and Historical regions of Romania prove he is wrong. He's the only user against the reference – user Biruitorul had nothing against it, having slightly modified it to improve it after I had added it. It's not the first time he makes unnecessary edit reverts; he also did it on the Oradea article back on 9 October 2020, and didn't succeed.
Also, he's wrongly claiming that Oradea was never part of Transylvania. Historical facts contradict him yet again, see the map in the infobox of Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711).
Can you please either temporarily block him or protect the two articles? Thank you! Please ping me if you reply. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lupishor: I am afraid this is content dispute in which I should not be involved. Please try to discuss at the talk page of the article; if the IP does not engage but continues reverting protection would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, a content dispute, but one where one side is supported by facts and the other one is not, while also lacking good faith. Alright, thanks for the reply. I am going to revert his edit once again and start a talk page on Oradea, while also making him aware of incoming page protection. I'll just write you again if he keeps on reverting. Lupishor (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So he's refusing to use the talk page and has reverted the edits again, despite several arguments used that contradict his unexplained edits. He's also started accusing me of having "too personal opinions" and providing no references. A page protection is the only option left, I'm afraid. Lupishor (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the user because they continued reverting despite the awrning and did not engage at the talk page, but other that this and the fact that they were ip hopping, it is content dispute. You think your arguments are stronger, they think their arguments are stronger.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ymblanter. About the last part, I have to stand by my point and remind you that I cited multiple articles (and a reference), while he didn't and moreover stubbornly accused me of not doing so. But again, thanks. Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The disruptive IP is back after the protection has expired. Please see if another protection or a range block to edit this page is required. — LeoFrank Talk13:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Ymblanter hi I saw you protected Rubina Dilaik's page for only few weeks which i think it needed to be protected permanently as users are still changing her birth year to the wrong one whilst there is reliable sources saying her corrected age was 30 in 2017. Please could you protect her page indefinitely. Please as ever since she won Bigg Boss 14 there have been a lot of vandalism on the page since February 2021. Preetykaur761 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I protected the artlcle for 3 months. Indefinite protection looks like an overkill at this point, may be in a year nobody knows who she is.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t 3 months it was for 2 weeks the protection is off now please could you permanently protect her page as many users have been changing her birth year the wrong one look here straight after users started changing it. Look even after 3 months they will come back and keep changing her birth year so please change it to indefinite. Preetykaur761 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but after 3 months they will come back and keep changing the wrong birth year for her why can’t you do it indefinitely. And also her fans will keep adding the wrong date or birth year after when 3 months are up. Preetykaur761 (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will not do it because we do not protect articles preventively. There is absolutely no evidence at this point that the disruption would continue forever. It only started in February, this is not an article like Jerusalem which is related with a hundred years conflict. If disruption restarts in three months, the article will have to be reprotected. I personally would protect it for a year then, but I know admins who would just give it another three months.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sunshine
Sunshine!
Hello Ymblanter! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that something went wrong in the processing of this batch if categories: the categories were renamed, but the content was not moved, and there has been no subsequent edits since then by the bot.
Thanks. There was indeed a template used in the category name, such as: [[Category:{{DECADE|{{Title year}}}} crimes in North Macedonia|{{Title year}}]]. For the other categories, I purged everything and it seems to have worked. Place Clichy (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a topic where I can act as administrator. You may want to try ANI, though it is notoriously ineffieicient in dealing with Eastern European topics.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter, the sock master who you blocked as Teke2015 (talk·contribs) has returned as カリマンタンタツ, not sure what the original account was or whether there is an SPI, so thought I'd note here in case you know or can take independent administrative action. Thanks, CMD (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So, two protection conflicts in a row — lucky? Anyway, I went with a year due to the sheer size of the protection log (tens of entries), and because it was protected for a year 2018-2019 and then 2019-2020, again. Hope that makes sense. Enjoy topical songspam!El_C06:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this is perfectly fine. Sorry for the protection conflicts, I usually try to stick either to the top or to the bottom of the list, to indicate what I am doing, but this time I for whatever reason did both, and I have only seen your first notification after my last protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uncivil edit summary
Hi. One user falsely accused me of spamming in their edit summary here - diff. The user removed my message and said "rm spam". I understand that it is their talk page and they can revert my edit (I am ok with the revert), but they are not allowed to use such non neutral edit summaries per WP:ESDONTS. I would like to ask you to remove the edit summary, because it is misleading and uncivil. --Renat10:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not nice of course but given the user self-reverted the edit they marked as minor more or less immediately, I do not think one should get out of this more than it really deserves.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I talked about their edit summary, no? Could you please tell me why are talking about self revert, minor edit etc? --Renat13:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If user self-reverted (and pretty much immediately), it means the user has recognized the edit was made in error. I do not know what the error actually was, but I do not see any evidence that the user actually intended to make this edit and to mark it as minor. And, btw, we have Wikipedia:Do not template the regulars, though many people unfortunately tend to completely ignore it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to make the point clearly to the user by providing a false diff. Now, complain against yourself, not against me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The diff wasn't false. The diff shows an example of an edit that is not minor, but was marked as minor. And it was reverted not because the user realized it, but because they added what's already in the article. Duplicate info. --Renat14:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a mindreader and I do not know why the user reverted it. Anyway, to warn the user for something they have already reverted is a bad style. May be if you have started from a different diff, you could get a different reaction, but not it is not possible to check it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Ymblanter:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Hello! Just for informational purposes (I'm not recommending any action or inaction): you blockedJsfasdF252 from all non-talk namespaces (as you said you would), but you later changed this to allow editing in both userspace and mainspace. It appears that you intended to only allow him to edit in userspace. Tol | talk | contribs17:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you take translation requests, but I was wondering if perhaps you could take a look at translating useful information from the Russian Wikipedia article on Zaamurets to the English article. I used to ask Iryna Harpy to do this sort of thing, but she's been gone for some time (I hope she's alright), and I know you're quite skilled in these matters. If you have time, it would be greatly appreciated. RGloucester — ☎20:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I do not believe in translation from other projects. In principle, I do not mind to write the article using sources, but in this case, I am not sure I can properly translate the terms, they are very specialized.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this edit summary: “the current consensus is to include Russian names where the majority speaks Russian.” Was there a specific discussion, or is that just an inference of the rationale? Such things can be noted in WP:UAPLACE.
(And would you mind if we removed ”pronounced \harkov\” which to me reads further from the pronunciation than the actual spelling?) —MichaelZ.22:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long-standing practice which predates my time in Wikipedia. These names were all added a long time ago, and their removal is routinely reverted. I believe I have seen the discussion (not a RfC) but I will not be able to find it easily. Toddy1 might know better. For the claritiy, this is about the lede, not about infoboxes. As far as I am concerned, infoboxes must only contain Ukrainian names (with possible exceptions f disputed territories). ”pronounced \harkov\” I guess can be removed, though if we add a transcription instead it would probably not harm.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there's a lot of incivility in the edit summaries over at Kryvyy Rih, I left a warning on the ip's talk page. I figured I should flag it to an admin and you happen to be the last one to edit the page. Any advice on what—if anything—to do in these situations is welcome—blindlynx (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hid two edit summaries, and the ip seem to be approaching the block if they continue. I will not block them though unless they start vandalizing the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you again, the ip is back, making not particularly useful edits. I tried to engage them on their talk page but given they're on mobile i doubt they can see—blindlynx (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dank je wel. Also, is my reluctance to revert and looking for help warranted (here or in general) or is there a better way to go about this?—blindlynx (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ideally they need to communicate, but of they do not and we have tried all communication avenues, I do not quite see what we can do except for going for a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Leila Velez, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of Leila Velez's reasons for expanding her Brazilian beauty-salon company is to fight racism against black women and their natural afro-textured hair? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leila Velez. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Leila Velez), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Hi. A dispute started on July 11 over the ethnic feelings of a guy who lived 2 centuries ago. The dispute has not been solved, and today till now 6 editors have made reverts. I am not involved in the content dispute, but given the long history of disputes on Greek-Albanian topics, maybe a short page protection is needed to calm down the situation [111]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know full well how difficult of a position you have been put in. Your extraordinary measure was no small feat and it most certainly is appreciated. For that, you are the first and only editor I have given this barnstar to. BOTTO (T•C)19:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ymblanter:. Do you think that you can help us rewrite the lead paragraph in the Wikipedia article City of David? As you can see here, the lead paragraph does not accurately portray a summarization of the article, based on Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section calls for the lead section to summarize the content of the article using 4 or 5 paragraphs Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, hope everything is Okay this new User entered in edit war with others [[112]] on this page [[113]] with 4 RR under 24 hours. Can something be done ? Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The user needs to be blocked, but, as explained in the yellow box on top of this page, I can not take the administrative action in this case. WP:3RRN is probably the easiest place to get them blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will do it later, need to go to work. Theonewithreason (talk) 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Ок, спасибо! Но тут бы не столько оверсайтов помощь нужна, сколько чекюзеров. Надо бы организовать кросс-вики проверку, но не знаю как. Эти же деятели, которые угрожают, вчера были пойманы на вбросах голосов за одних кандидатов и против других на выборах в наш АК. И угрожают, насколько я знаю, не только мне. Волк (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your prompt action with that IP. Personally I think all of the edit summaries in that list are abusive and could be oversighted. But I don't know what the exact rules are or (perhaps more importantly) if further action would have any effect. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be rash; just have a KitKat. I think a prior unequivocal "this is not an exemption because it is an article and anything further will result in a block" on a user talk page would have achieved a more desirable result on all levels, be it for preventing further reverts, providing an opportunity for seeking clarification, or justifying a block if it continued in the absence of those steps. Even admins with gut and those who look at complex cases will see that in hindsight, but that doesn't mean they need to leave if they didn't that time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not leaving anywhere, I just have high blood pressure and can not sleep. Not really looking forward. The explanation is on the user's talk page, but the6y obviously disagree.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, everybody, do not post here. There could not be anything urgent, and I am not really in a shape to deal with non-urgent things. Just do not write anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to offer a note of thanks. Existing with Wikipedia somewhere on the periphery of my life is exhausting enough; I cannot imagine having actual duties to the site and community. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that there are many time-pressed Admins who make rushed and/or poor decisions because of their perceived duty to the community. That's regrettable. I guess if things were "better organised" an Admin could choose to relinquish a given area of responsibility or something from the admin toolbox, instead of being pressured to relinquish all tools and be "desysopped." But no-one should feel they can't take a break from Admin duties for a pre-arranged, or even an indeterminate, length of time? Certainly no-one wants anyone to ever suffer health consequences. I fear this may be largely an untold story across the Admin community. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My decision yesterday seems to be on its way to be validated by ArbCom, but, well, who cares. And the damage has already been done. There is no way I would be as active admin as in the last two years, I will just not survive physically another harassment exercise like the one from yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great shame, Ymblanter, because everyone (well, perhaps most people) can see you have acted in good faith. But if it's a choice between sense of duty and health, that's an easy call. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how it works exactly, but it looks like you may have accidentally not blocked User:JsfasdF252 from the talk space because you wanted to keep his user talk space open. They made this edit request to an article's talk page recently. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲talk05:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you mentioned in a comment you left at ANI that you have an edit count gadget installed. I have one that shows me when users are blocked, and one that shows me user rights on the user's page, but I don't know of the one you mentioned. Your vector.js file doesn't seem to contain it. Would you point the way? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I've been using two different ones: markblocked.js to show users as blocked (this appears in the user page title as well as striking out the username in contribution and history pages) and sysopdectector.js (which shows the user rights like sysop, extendedconfirmed, checkuser, autopatrol, etc. as part of the user's page title). Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you fancy a go at something else, I reckon the individual pages of all involved athletes will need an update at some point (concerns about whether this is truly necessary thrown aside); as I've done for example here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but for me it is 2:30 am now, I will go to sleep now. What you mention is definitely necessary work, but I guess we will be still doing it for months.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter - you peaked my interest. You referred to someone blocking a CU on commons and demanding that someone who unblocked them be desysopped. I don't know the case, any more background you can give me, or a link you can point me at? I've never had much to do with Commons, aside from finding images (and occasionally uploading photographs) to use in articles, but this recent encounter has made me want to understand how it works (or doesn't work) a bit better. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)12:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was a couple of years ago, and, as far as I know, this has not been written down in any comprehensive way, i.e. there was no post-mortem analysis. I will see whether I can easily find the diffs.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yegods. By 'such a scale' do you mean admins wheelwarring and calling for desysop is a regular occurrence? I'm trying to think what else could possibly rise to that level of drama. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two other incidents I remember off the top of my head was (1) an admin deleted file out of process and refused to undelete it (on procedural ground); the file was accidentally mine, and I got a lot of feedback saying this is my own fault; the admin was later community desysopped; (2) someone canvassed a lot of English Wikipedia users to a discussion, to the point that they outnumbered the Commons regulars there, which obviously nobody on Commons liked, and there was a big shitstorm. Generally, admins accusing each other in all kind of inappropriate behavior is a pretty common situation but usually it does not result in desysops. On Commons, there is a possibility of community desysop, one needs to get consensus on a regular noticeboard that desysop discussion has merit, and then the discussion can be opened. I only remember three desysop discussion during my tenure on Commons (since 2007 I guess?) though I could have missed a couple. Wheelwarring does not occur too often there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AN revision delete
@Moneytrees and Favonian: I am not sure what happened, but I definitely did not intend to unhid the edit. I guess Moneytrees and me revision-delete-conflicted, and this is probably why it did not work as intended.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Ymblanter! Does that get logged anywhere? I am asking for my own education, not because I think you neglected to do something! I couldn't immediately see that you had logged it somewhere, but maybe someone else beat you to it. —valereee (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, I missed that bit! And I would have sworn I searched for 'logged' on that page, sorry. And, yes, we don't see them every day either. I was like, oh, now I can see what's supposed to happen. :) —valereee (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. What an unpleasant surprise. So many familiar and respected names on that list whom I thought were still administrators. I do hope you don't intend to join their ranks. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter, thank you for ending the little edit war that was going on there. Could you take a look at the talk page and the BLP noticeboard regarding this issue and which of the two possible names is correct for this page? BreckenK (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand not wanting to be involved in a content dispute while you have your admin hat on, but is there not a better solution than leaving up a name everybody (but the person who changed it) in the ensuing talk page discussion agrees is unsourced up on a BLP for three days? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but your edit has been reverted by at least two users. I do not have access to NYT article (it is behind the paywall, and I am not going to pay anything or even register). Sop what I am going to do is to unprotect the article, and then you guys can just continue edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problematic user, but I can not block them as explained in the box on top of this page. At some point, someone should take them to the arbitration enforcement and topic ban them for Ukraine, but for this one needs to collect the diffs, which takes time.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the translation since I believe it is grammatically wrong, but other than this I do not have any interest in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In proper Russian, if the term exists, it would likely be русско-украинская война. It looks like российско-украинская война is a translation from ukrainian, where росийський meand Russian. In Russian, российский as an adjective sounds very odd (most often applied to a species of cheese, российский сыр). I think Brateevsky is right that reliable sources are needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recurrent topic, I believe this is the third time you ask this question at my talk page. The problem is that you refuse to discuss anything and keep reverting until the matter escalates somewhere (ANI, or now to my talk page). At some point it will escalate to AE, and if by that time you do not change your editing patterns and not start discussing changes and respect WP:BRD, you are likely to get a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Добрый день! Уточните, пожалуйста: «такие ссылки» — это какие именно? Ссылки на Викиданные в отсутствие статей в других разделах? И где можно ознакомиться с достигнутым консенсусом? (на странице шаблона, к сожалению, подобных указаний не вижу) --INS Pirat (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Был опрос, по результатам которого ссылки на Викиданные запрещены в тексте статей. Я попробую попозже его найти, это 2017 или 2018 год.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Спасибо. Ну, автор итога просто посчитал участников обсуждения (хотя, может, так в enwiki принято). При этом, как я понял, по ссылкам с использованием шаблона {{Interlanguage link}} как раз указано, что консенсуса нет. Это подкрепляется тем, что, допустим, в самом шаблоне, собственно, не отключено отображение ссылки в основном пространстве. Кроме того, в изначальном запросе упоминались ссылки на элементы персон, статьи о которых удалены по их незначимости, а это не тот случай (участники ОИ значимы). Но я пока не прочитал обсуждение полностью. --INS Pirat (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Лично я скорее за использование шаблона в таком виде, как Вы его использовали, но обсуждение есть, итог подведён, и для того, чтобы его изменить, нужно новое обсуждение (причём никакие процедурные аопросы типа !итог подведён плохо" не будут приняты во внимание.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anon IP insulting other users at their edit summaries.
Hi. There is an ongoing dispute there. It started after an editor added some controversial content. They were reverted by me and 2 other editors. That editor made 5 reverts in 24 hours, reverting 4 editors who disagree with him, [115][116][117][118][119], although they got a warning after the 3rd revert [120]. They were warned for edit warring last week by an admin [121]. Should the article be protected or some advice or even a short block be given to that editor? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Now that I see the pre-dispute version, I realize that the editor made even more questionable changes than I previously thought. Anyways, 3 days should be enough to sort all these out on the talk page. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the block imposed on me was a bit excessive. It has been over 3 months since I was blocked on Wikipedia for the first time, and it is only one of the "new normals" I was forced to experience. The block extends to the Help, Draft, and File pages, even though my edits in these namespaces weren't as disruptive as those in Template, Category, and Article pages. Since the initial block didn't include article space, I was able to make edits in articles throughout May and June. Many of these edits were minor style fixes, and I avoided doing disruptive edits that I did in the past, such as attempting to reimplement subpages for articles. Now that I have been blocked from editing articles also, I need to use a template on a talk page just to fix even the smallest error. Also, I encountered some potentially false statements, such as those in Technology doping and De Rham Curve. I have made constructive edits in other wikis as well, such as the OSM wiki. I have learned that hybrid templates, article subpages, and non-notable categorizations have been the reasons for the block. I would like to wake up one day and find out that I could edit much of Wikipedia once again. It may take a long while, but a partial unblock from at least one other namespace would still be okay. JsfasdF252 (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was a communty-imposed block. To modify it, you need to appeal to the community. You obviously can not do it dorectly as you can not edit WP:AN, but you can post an appeal unblock at your talk page, and someone will move it to WP:AN. However, I would advise you to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks carefully before posting it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page does not contain the text you reverted, and, in any case, it was not clear from your edit summary why you removed the text.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter,
I ask for reconsideration to unprotect the page Robert E. Clark II. To allow it to remain as is seems to contradict the reason for protecting - to prevent vandalism, which seems exactly what Jonboi199 is doing. The previous section (below) seems to accurately, with a neutral tone, and publicly available references, explain what transpired - Clark was President for ~ 6yrs; members of the faculty published a no confidence resolution two months before the College became part of Delaware State University that was forwarded to the Board of Trustees for action; the Board took action - dismissed the resolution; and then subsequently the Board of Trustees bestowed upon Clark President Emeritus for reasons stated. Their replacement (which seems to be a repeated "cut & paste" without justification or cause), which remains on the site, was protected with a section that seems biased, incomplete, and violates Wikipedia's POV policy. Thank you for your consideration and time. XTC7YV32 (talk)
Education Administrator
Clark served as 17th President of Wesley College in Dover, Delaware,[1] beginning July 15, 2015.[2][3] On March 1, 2021, two months before the school's closure, some members of the faculty published a no confidence resolution against Clark that was forwarded to the Wesley College Board of trustees. The Wesley College Board of Trustees voted unanimously on March 20,2021 to dismiss the resolution. Additionally, the Board of Trustees voted unanimously to bestow upon President Clark, President Emeritus in recognition of his leadership, and service to the College and the community. [4][5]'
I am sorry but you call Jonboi199;s edits vandalism, whereas they call your edits COI editing. Nobody cared to start a talk page discussion. I am not going to take any side here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for at least listening/considering...but why not unprotect to allow talk page discussions to take place & resolve...I will initiate. Not sure I understand COI charge...edits did nothing but provide a neutral and complete account, based on references, to what apparently happened...but, again to your point that could, and should, be resolved in a talk page - I am just requesting that opportunity. Thank you again for your time and I hope you are having a good day. XTC7YV32 (talk)
@Ymblanter: Thank you again for your help and time. I will add my thoughts to the "talk page" and hopefully Jonboi199 will participate so we can collaboratively complete this section with a neutral, valid, and complete section. Have a great afternoon. XTC7YV32 (talk)
Hi Ymblanter. I'm wondering if there are any guidelines for how a panel close is to be collectively drafted. Are they drafted on-wiki, such as in a sandbox, or are they usually worked on off-wiki until they are posted as a close? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not think there are any instructions. In all cases I participated to closing text was discussed off-wiki, in an ad hoc mailing list, and then posted by one of the closers and signed by all of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for protecting the above mentioned page. I seemed to have accidentally removed all of the templates at the top of the page, including the COI template. I was hoping you could restore them. Thank you. 205.154.245.36 (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am pretty sure I have not removed any templates, and if editors of the page deem it necessary they will add any template they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually my bad. I removed the templates that were at the top of the page when I reverted to the last revision before the edit war started. I was hoping you could restore them. Thank you. 205.154.245.36 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Ymblanter. Regarding your recent move protection of the above-mentioned page (which I endorse), I'd like to ask for your opinion further to those regards. I had replied to a posting on my talk page[122] and was in the follow-up phase of drafting a request, in my sandbox, to have my actions reviewed. In long form summary, I was lured into this war by a so-called "uncontested technical request" but I should have been more diligent in my responsibilities wp:before moving the page. In my own defence, I did verify search results indicating the requested title appeared to satisfy wp:commonname, and I verified the companies website which showed there current use of the company name as reflected by the request. Factor in a reasonable assumption of good faith which I felt the user requesting the move was entitled and the defacto right of a company to declare the correct form of their own name, I proceeded to complete the technical request without further review. It turns out that the request was in clear bad faith and succeeded in drawing me in to the move war in progress. With the page protected, which I intended to request, the only thing left is a review of my own fitness for the page mover flag. To expedite the entire process, will you please make a wp:3o decision to that end (I have trust and a high regard for whatever decision you make). The only mitigation I can offer is to state in earnest that I will increase the level of due diligence on my part, and never again log a page move without checking the article's talk page and recent edit history (if you allow me to retain the page mover rights). Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You recently blocked editor Catcafe at the Amanda Stoker for 31 hours for edit warring. However it seems you removed the other indefinite block on this editor Catcafe over their previous edit warring at Jessica Yaniv by applying the new unrelated block. Once this expired it took away the indefinite underlying block on their account. Can you restore the indefinite block please. Honestyisbest (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter! I think this revdel'd edit to USS Snook (SS-279) in the public domain, since I found it at here (U.S. government works are PD). The IP made the same edit to Iriomote Island, where I added the citation and PD attribution template, so if you agree with this and are willing to un-hide the revision, I can add the citation for this article as well. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this. I have unset the revision deletion, I will appreciate if you could properly reference the text. The source I found did not specify PD (though they might very well have copied the text produced by the US government without attribution).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ymblanter, I noticed you made an edit and removed a sentence, but the sentence seems to be backed up below in the article, see specifically Makwan Amirkhani#Amateur wrestling. It would have been better to provide the sources or possibly reword it instead of outright removing it as it flows with the purpose of the text. --TataofTata (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a sentence because it had a source but the source did not back it up. Moreover, without a source it was overstating things as it creates an impression that Amirkhan had notable achievements in amateur wrestling whereas he would not be notable by Wikipedia standards for his amateur performance. The information can obviously be reinstated if backed by reliable sources and rewritten appropriately.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll avoid semantics as I did not add the original text nor do I know enough about his achievements being notable, but like I said it would have been better to simply improve/correct it. I have now hopefully improved the line. --TataofTata (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SPI Check
Greetings, hope everything is okay, there are this 2 new accounts with the same interest on the same subject that appeared today and both have the same geolocation, is there a possibility to check are they the same editor using multiple accounts ? [[123]] and this one [[124]] thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, this involves an Admin action you performed in 2019, and I'm not sure if this is eligible for WP:ANI. If I'm in the wrong place, let me know and I can post this where it belongs. Anyway, I received a request from an anonymous IP user to move the article Ratheesh Ambat (a filmmaker) because the man's name is spelled wrong in the title, and his true name is Rathish Ambat. I found that you salted articles with the true spelling because someone kept re-creating them, presumably because the filmmaker is non-notable. Here is your Admin action: [127]. You did that in 2019, then in 2020 someone created the latest version of the filmmaker's article by simply spelling his name wrong, at Ratheesh Ambat. I'm not sure if this newer article could be deleted immediately under your 2019 block, or if we need to discuss the fillmmaker's notability again, etc. Please advise. Thanks! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not remember any details, but I guess one needs to discuss the notability again - for example, by sending the article to AfD. If it survives it can be moved to a new name.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can start a new AfD. But what is the procedure if the filmmaker is deemed notable this time, and then we need to move the existing article to the correct spelling of his name, a title that you indefinitely blocked back in the day? Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i had no time to thank you properly this morning due to job duties. I wanted to thank you very much for swiftly indeffing that vandal (ScottMartini25) who was vandalizing Susa weddings. Cheers. ---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)16:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you've denied a request for copyvio revdel in the Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic article. During the revisions listed in the note, there was a sentence taken nearly verbatim from this website, with the only change being the transformation of "NI" to "Northern Irish". While the source is cited in a footnote, it's under crown copyright, and don't think that expanding an acronym is enough to get around the crown copyright in this case. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to take another look.
If it is just one sentence, I would not revision-delete over hundred edits over more than a month (which were previously taken from a sandbox, and that from another sandbox, and at the end of the day it is difficult to trace who has written what). Thanks for removing the sentence.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Bagdasarian Productions
Hello, Ymblanter,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Wakowako and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Bagdasarian Productions, for deletion, because [[{{{2}}}|a consensus decision]] previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Wakowako}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
I was wondering if you might intervene with TheLionHasSeen. He's been going around creating unnecessary pipes of things like [[Eastern Orthodox Church]]es to [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox church]]es claiming that this is "grammar". When I confronted him about it at Saint Sylvester he just reinstated his changes. He's been doing this on many other pages, e.g. here.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ermenrich and Ymblanter. We are in a zone of hairsplitting but I think there is an argument for the changes by User:TheLionHasSeen. ('Eastern Orthodox Church' is a proper name, but 'Eastern Orthodox churches' could be seen as generic, so not proper). By analogy, there were four presidents in the room, one of whom was President Smith. Of course, people should not edit war. I would recommend opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After Djks1 breached the 4RR by reverting 3 other editors on Markos Botsaris, another editor and me went to his talk page to suggest he be more careful and better familiarize with Wikipedia's guidelines. However, Djks1 insists on making personal attacks, including nationality-based ones. That is the discussion. The last post seems to be the most unconstructive one. Can you take a look if/when time permits? Should a DS alert regarding the Balkans be given to him? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The inappropriate comments include: "It's already been reverted by the Greeks. The self delusion is too much for others to overcome it seems", " I am well aware of the rules and frankly am not too concerned about "constructive editing environment" which does not exist thanks to some incredibly biased individuals, deluded in their world views", "There is clear political motive to vandalise, in a "correct" way, Albanian articles from these people", "I am not concerned with upsetting xenophobic extremists", "one person and The "Brave" Koward", "a pathetic Wikipedian basement dweller", "wise arse mockery". Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for bringing to my attention that the information I added was not changed enough to prevent it from being a violation of your copyright rules and therefore was deleted. This informtion was not verbatum from the source as I had made some changes to the text and I had not completed the area with the citations necessary as I ran out of time. I apologise for this inconvenience. Can I recreate this section rewriting the text and submit for publishing again as I think its worthwhile information?
Magenta158 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Hello, I don't see any use to include a "reference" for a parameter of an infobox that is blank. You may find it helpful, but that is something I have never seen in any infoboxes on WP, and it is not a reference at all. It's a footnote, but it still shouldn't be included. That begs the question, why not add "none" to other parameters? Why not add a "none" to the holiday parameter, and add a reference with a law permitting the oblast to have an oblast holiday? That just makes no sense to me personally. I've made a sample in User:PerpetuityGrat/sandbox2; if you look at the successor... this just seems so commonsense to me. Why would we provide a ref/footnote to something that doesn't exist? Again, I have never seen this type of information in an infobox before. It may be "useful" to you and maybe others, but that doesn't mean that it belongs in the infobox. Right? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the changes you made to Tver Oblast, that's more of a comment anyway. There just doesn't seem to be a reason to indicate the law that allows something, when that something doesn't exist. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is just some non-trivial information. (Note that it was not me who added it). Not all our readers speak Russia, and not all of them have access to this document, so I think it is more useful than not. Concerning the holiday, if we have a similar reference, why not?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you didn't add these originally, but you're still defending their inclusion. And concerning the holiday... because we don't include "none" in the infobox parameter for something that doesn't exist. There is not content about the lack of an anthem in the article, so how could it possibly be useful in the infobox? It is a comment, not a reference, and at best a footnote. Can you show me a few other places where this actually is allowed? Where a parameter is either blank and has a reference, or a parameter says "none" and has a reference? I know you didn't create these... but these really make zero sense. Why not add references to every blank parameter at that point? Let's just fill in all the blank parameters with "none..." --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I know you are a seasoned editor, and I hope this doesn't come across as rude or insensitive. But adding a "ref" to a parameter that doesn't exist is an improper use of a citation and the MOSinfobox. It's trivia at best, and if it's really that important, the user who added these (several years ago) should have added a section about it--though I doubt a section to indicate that some law passed that allows oblasts to have anthems would have much significance (which is probably why it doesn't exist, it's just trivia. If there's some WP:NOTE about the (lack of an) anthem, then sure, add a section. To have this kind of thing in an infobox is just wrong.
I see how some other Russian oblast articles have them, but again, how does that make it correct? To add a "ref" to a blank parameter is just so wrong. Make a section about it if it's something useful rather than add a comment-like reference. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what world is it okay to add "none" to an infobox parameter? Is there another place where this exists? And no, I'm deleting it because it makes zero sense to include a "none" parameter exists... --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you made a change. I disagreed and reverted. You went to my talk page to discuss, but all your arguments are "makes no sense" and "just so wrong". I am not really convinced by these arguments. What does WP:DR says? That it is ok to continue reverting?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if you want to take it to a dispute resolution you can. I've mentioned the MOSinfobox, and really could invoke WP:CITE (though it's already obvious that citations are meant to provide information about a source and not act as a comment/footnote). All you've really said is that it's useful. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'll do it. But still waiting on a policy you can point to justify adding "none" to infobox parameters and adding a comment-like citation as an FYI. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I do not need any policy to justify it. You need to point out the policy which prohibits it. It is quite possible that this policy exists, but I am not aware of it. Until it has been found, we just have opposite opinions concerning WP:MOS.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, on September 20 you indefinitely partially blocked the user from editing certain pages. I just sitewide blocked CatCafe for one week based on a report at WP:AN3. I'm not sure what will happen when my block expires, meaning will the partial block continue. That's what I think should happen because otherwise I'm lifting a block that I am not entitled to lift, even if I wanted to. How do we handle this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess when your block expires then the user is fully unblocked. I do not think there is a technical tool to handle this, we just need to come back to their page in a week and block them again. I have their talk page on my watchlist, I can do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: I Had Request The Right Of IP Block Exmeption From LongHair before 2 days ago,They Have Given Me This Right For 1 Month Asked To Reviwew After 1 Month But I Still Dont Understand Which One He Will Review What Happened Will They Block Me Please Help me ,Please see my talkpage Lazy Maniik.Best Regards. Maniik🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.14:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i league 2nd division - State leagues need capital letter please. although next time better ban vandals instead of locking pages. kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.235.55 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
can you unlock article as other admin did with related league, if already wont correct one letter... and i know few main indian users wont either. or i fix in few days, but sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.148.193 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the article was that ip users were constantly adding unsourced and unverified information. I do not see any reason why this should not happen again.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think your protection is perfectly fine, both due to the behavior of the ip and also because the article is under discretionary sanctions in the area of pseudoscience.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give me orders
I told you I wasn't interested in the opinions of other editors so why don't you listen? Your views are valueless and nonsensical. The intoduction is supposed to reflect the body of the article, which is does now after I edited it. It certainly didn't before I got to it. If you weren't happy with it then you should have done it yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you and then annoying them with your drivel. I can only assume you are yet another obessive editor with some vested interest in the subject. You ought to be banned not me. Now go away and don't bother me again.--Murky Falls (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I updated Vyborg District in Leningrad Oblast based on Finnish and Russian pages of Wikipedia with adding urban and rural municipalities of her since 2010. But, you cancelled them despite I added source. Please you add ″Since 2010 Vyborg district has been divided into 7 urban settlements (Kamennogorsk, Primorsk, Roshchino, Sovetsky, Svetogorsk, Vyborg and Vysotsk) and 6 rural ones (Glebytshevo, Goncharovo, Krasnoselskoye, Permovayskoye, Polyany and Seleznyovo)[1]″ sentence to it. Yours sincerely Cemsentin1 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. First, the Finnish Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and thus no information can be added based on it. Second, and more importantly, you confuse administrative and municipal divisions. Here we use the administrative divisions as primary ones, and the administrative divisions of the districts are cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and Selsoviets. The corresponding municipal formations are urban and rural municipal settlements. This information obviously must be added, and I have done it for example for the districts of Arkhangelsk Oblast, but this is not my immediate priority right now.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will correct this. We need to point out the provenance of the free material, copying without attribution is copyright violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Чем это она луче? У меня оригинал не сжатый он не может быть хуже старой фотографии. Тем более место уже изменилось. Езжайте туда, сделайте свою хорошую фотографию и зхагружайте.
Hi, the user {{noping|Çerçok} has been aggressive since the beginning of the discussion in the Greek war of Independence making inappropriate comments for the ethnicity of other editors, using aggressive language [129] and ignoring the advise of 3 editors regarding the way to talk in WP. Would you be able to have a look? Thank you in advance Othon I (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your September 2019 warning to this editor concerning this very issue. They appear to use their sporadic editing behavior as a way to avoid too much attention. They change "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" on some article then slip back into the shadows. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, however please keep an eye on that article, if possible. The topic of ancient Epirus is one of the most controversial ones in the Balkans. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Usedtobecool. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Second Kishida Cabinet, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Huh! I had thought these messages didn't go without asking anymore. Good thing I checked. Anyway, I am not sure about this article, as this is his first cabinet and there is already Kishida Cabinet. I unreviewed it because worst case scenario, it seems like this could be a hoax. I have asked the wikiproject, and will resolve it based on their response. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked indeed that Kishida Cabinet exists and thought this is a new incarnation, since the starting date is a month later. Let us wait whether there is any reaction from the project, it is probably safer to keep the article unreviewed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I thought Shusha was semi-protected indefinitely - it currently has no page protection, could you possibly readd it? There are often IP:s and new users making disruptive edits to the page. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter, the block on Posp68’s IP address seems to have warn off, he’s back at it contributing at e.g. Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked the latest IP for a week, but somebody more competent than me should have at the range, what could reasonably be blocked and for which duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what do you understand as unauthorized sources? normal sources, especially 24smi.org. And in general, how do you KNOW about whether this person is significant or not? Do you live in Russia, or what? Yes, she pops out of every iron, she was on a TV show, etc. A very famous person. Redaktor me (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, if she was invited to a TV show, if she previously had a popular account, as much as 4 million subscribers, is this called unknown? Yes, Irina sounds from every smoothing-iron, all our TikTok (Russian) knows her! She participated in famous TV shows, and in general, despite the relatively small number of subscribers, she is really very, very famous. They constantly slander her, do nasty things, then support her. I find this silly delete request inappropriate. Delete immediately! Redaktor me (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, there are freaks who are much less well-known than Irina Kostyleva, why do you doesn't have any questions about THEM, but about a real Russian star? Who are you? Who are you for Russia? You don't know which stars are popular with us and which are not. So, if this template was inserted by a Russian-language user, then I would still understand. But you, by all means, are not. So, I'm asking this to stop and remove this deletion notice. sorry for being rude Redaktor me (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the bullshit? Judging by you, you are on your side, even when you force obvious arguments. Yes, easily, I will not write here anymore. I just got the impression of you a stubborn and angry person, who is her only obvious things. I am immediately removed from your page. Redaktor me (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preysbolls is asking to be unblocked, saying they "will edit about horses" (LOL). Looks like talk page access will need to go in the near future? Either that or give them some WP:ROPE? Mako001 (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am now involved, I can not act on their unblock request. Another administrator will do it. and talk page access may be revoked at that point. Realistically speaking, I do not see them getting unblocked solely as a result of this request.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. After I asked for your attention, I got myself involved in the dispute. So I am probably in no (honest) position to ask for admin intervention anymore. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the pic description on Commons was the issue, but I had the wrong impression. I left a suggestion for them on the talk page. I do not care anymore. Maybe my suggestion helps them. It is a tiny detail, a waste of time. I hope I did not waste you precious time with my request for attention. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian translits
Hey, I noticed you posted a WP:AE notice on the talk page of an editor that's been changing a bunch of Ukrainian transliteration to some system of their preference, i've changed a bunch of them back but should i hold off until the AE is over? Also there are a lot of them and i'm not sure if i can get all of them or if this constitutes hounding. Any advice is much appreciated.
I would say their actions are so much against consensus that it is ok to mass-revert it. I have done some a week ago, but only the edits which showed up on my watchlist (they in addition removed Russian names of some East Ukrainian localities, which is against established consensus as well).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There’s some really factually incorrect data on that page and now nobody can edit it… for example; there’s a Reuters article that’s quoted which describes GameStop’s short interest falling from 140% in January to 15% in March, yet that article quotes S3 for the data, and fails to mention that the 140% short interest was calculated with a completely different formula than the 15% number they quote, since S3 changed their formula to calculate short interest. 2607:FB91:141D:1F96:A595:4E59:BB70:CC5C (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter, I have a question regarding an IP you blocked earlier this year for trolling: [131]. Not sure if you’re aware, but that IP is an alt account of an extremely prolific commenter in the race & intelligence topic area whom I would categorize as consistently disruptive (for ID confirmation, see [132]). On that account’s userpage [133], they state that they often edit as an IP out of laziness but I suspect that they may be doing so to avoid scrutiny, i.e. by making it harder to put together the various behavioral warnings and blocks they've received in the past. Note that, until I called them out on it, their userpage simply stated that they Formerly posted from IP 73.xxx, address now defunct, which, I argued, appeared to be a misrepresentation [134], [135]. In any case, they have now escalated from posting long rants at FTN and article talk pages to ArbCom [136], so perhaps an indef is coming their way regardless. Just wondering if you might have any insight to offer here, especially as to whether there is an SPI case to be made. Thanks for all the work you do, Generalrelative (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am sorry, I do not see how I can help. I do not even think I can block this IP now - whereas their edits do not look to be constructive, I do not think they are at the level of a block at this point, and they do not edit so much.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ymblanter, if possible, I'd like your opinion and possible help. I misunderstood this technical move request, and contested it in accordance with that misunderstanding. When I published the contest, an edit conflict indicated that another editor had answered the request and moved the page. Still believing the contest was valid, I requested that the move be reverted and the requested move be discussed.[137] A clarification published in the move discussion engendered my realisation of the misunderstanding, and my further realisation that the original request was uncontroversial. And that it should have been actioned as a technical request. After thoroughly considering the guidelines regarding RM discussion, I do not see a provision that would allow me to close the discussion early (being clearly involved) yet I am convinced that it should be closed and moved in full accordance with the original request. I have already caused enough unnecessary extra work for others that I am hoping the mess can be cleaned up now instead of seven days more. If you are agreeable, and will close the request as contest withdrawn or some such, I'll gladly move the pages and do all of the post-move cleanup. And if you think the discussion should instead run its course, I'll abide by that just as well. I'll be glad, either way, just knowing I've sought thoughtful insight like yours. Thank you for considering this request. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see there was some activity yesterday, which included multiple moves and a history merge. I believe in this situation, it is best to have the discussion, even though it seems fully uncontroversial, run its course.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
There is an organised campaign by members of the organisation Aosdána, to which O'Searcaigh belongs, to conceal these events.
They were the subject of widespread media and government discussion, and was the largest event in this niche irish-language poet's life.
And most importantly, the subject has admitted and never denied having sexual relationships with the teenage boys dependant on his financial charity in Nepal.
No BLP breach.
Make this argument at the talk page of the article. I certainly need to familiarize myself with the policies of this project, but I am sorry to say disruptively editing IPs are not the editor group I care much about.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your redaction is what qualifies it as disruptive ?
And you're 'not interested' yet see fit t9 interfere without checking the (undisputed) facts?
You deleted an accurate and pertinent paragraph essential to the accuracy of the page, and then suggest that the matter be taken to the Talk (after locking the article) ? Have you any self-awareness ?
Did you check up on anything in the subject before deleting it, or were you just trigger-happy in your uninformed perusal of edit notifications?
The previous person who deleted the paragraph was suspended immediately afterwards for operating sock-puppet accounts.
Earlier this year another one was warned that he should not be editing the pageas he was a personal friend of the subject (and by his own admission didn't want the case to be brought up as it was difficult for O'Searcaigh, and was a member of the same State Artist Organisation that had come in for public criticism for the attempts by some of their members to obscure and downplay the events in question - discussed in the hyperlink above)
And way back, prior to that, as you can see in the Talk page as it stands there was a concerted campaign by a faction of editors to keep the matter off the page - all of their arguments are redundant; most rested on the situation as it stood prior to the airing of the documentary where O'Searcaigh admitted using his position to get sexual favours from several sixteen-year old boys (when asked how many of the the fifty odd boys involved with the charity were targeted, O'Searcaigh refused to give an answer but said not all of them...)
This is an Irish-language poet, a niche subject, who used his charity work in Nepal to access numerous teenage boys dependant on his charity and gain sexual favours from them. It was the subject of media coverage in Ireland, Britain, India and of course Nepal.
It was the subject of debate for months in all of the main Irish newspapers, National radio and Television. It was the subject of discussion by Irish government ministers and heated debates in the Second House of government.
A campaign was carried out by friends of the poet to conceal or obfuscate the matter, using witnesses that were later found out to be false (discussed in the Fairytale of Kathmandu page). Some of the same people took part in a campaign to have the matter censored on the wikipedia page.
The matter has a section on the documentary which uncovered the scandal here on wikipedia, but the substance and facts of the documentary and the events in question (to which, it should be repeatedly emphasised, O'Searcaigh has numerous times admitted in several interviews) are redacted and censored from the page.
For the record, the basis of the defense that O'Searcaigh has made was that intergenerational sex was part of his personal definition of a homosexual lifestyle, and that as he didn't physically coerce his victims he did nothing wrong. And the editors who have defended him (and blocked coverage of the matter) have used practically the same reasons as to why tbey believe it should not be included.
Here is what the Rape Crisis Network had to say of this - https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20055915.html
' Fiona Neary, director of the Rape Crisis Network, said Mr Ó Searcaigh was clearly not sorry. “Ó Searcaigh has made a disturbing appearance of an apology which included a further failure to recognise any wrongdoing. Indeed, Ó Searcaigh seeks to defend his actions,” she said.
“These words are put together by a man of words, a man who knows how to measure each individual word for its meaning and intention. To deliberately and intentionally confuse the sexual exploitation of boys in a poverty-stricken country with a ‘gay lifestyle’ is insulting to gay men and women, and a ploy to confuse matters.” '
By deleting the paragraph you have involved yourself in this. This isn't vandalism or personal wikipedia arguments, this is a concerted attempt at censoring facts deemed inconvenient by a faction of editors with personal and professional ties to the subject.
And this is what you are backing up, inadvertently or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.69 (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ymblanter, I hope all is well! I have a question for you about the reliability of sources from the former Soviet Union since I know you edit a lot in that area. I found a really good source about the Orontid dyansty by the distinguished Tajik historian Bobojon Ghafurov published in 1971, here is the encyclopedia Iranica article on him[139], but got reverted because it wasn’t a western source and published in Moscow. I was always under the impression that it was fine to use sources from Russia/The Soviet Union, especially in an area such as ancient history. I know English language sources are generally preferred for verifiability, but can you advise me on the Wikipedia policy regarding eastern sources, especially those coming from the former soviet union? here is the source[140] (not just for this specific case but in general since I use them quite frequently), Thank you! TagaworShah(talk)14:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an academic source, from an academic published, and looks perfectly fine. If it contradicts to some other sources (which might be the case) it can be mentioned as one of the sources.If your opponents thing this is fringe they must come with some arguments better than the language of the source.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This one at least has a source, and I can not immediately determine the reliability of the source. In this situation, I do not feel confident to revision-delete the edits, though the page must be protected if this gets restored.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with this user. I added a Uw-disruptive1 warning to his talk page but he deleted his talk page, so he's on his first or second warning by now. Tollsjo (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about blocking per NOTHERE, but they had a contribution on an unrelated topic earlier this year. If they continue the current activity, a block is likely.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PIA topic ban
I am not sure what is meant by your comment on AE. Does this mean that I am already banned from this topic or that you are considering it? Also, please take into account when I say that I need clarification as to whether a 24 hour period mean 'a day' or 24 hours between two edits, that I have a diagnosis of Autism and tend to take things literally. 24 hrs usually means to me 'a day' and the edits were done on two seperate days. If you cannot see why I need a clearer explanation here then perhaps it is because your mind may work differently to mine. I am trying to co-operate and have been since my edit was reverted earlier today, by talkpage discussions and refraining from making further edits until a consensus is reached. Amirahtalk22:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and please also bare in mind that I removed the text because the way it is stated is original research and it is defamatory to suggest that their primary motive was to 'become Shaheeds' while it is obvious in the sources that their primary motive was to bring aid to Gaza. This suggestion even caused one editor to write on the talk page that they should have been labelled as terrorists. Yet, the editors of the page completely ignored what was said in the sources about their primary motive and cherry-picked the text that their motive was to become Shaheeds. They did not embark on this with a wish to die, although they realised that they may die in the process. They were unfortunate victims of a tragic event. Even if it is not a BLP it is still defamatory. There are special rules for removing defamatory material from BLP's and it is still unclear to me how these rules should apply elsewhere, but IMO there should not be defamatory material anywhere on Wikipedia. I would have thought that these rules should also have applied in this case. Amirahtalk22:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to discuss this here. If you think this is relevant please post it at the AE page so that other users might react as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone created this, which was already deleted twice (one of these earlier versions must have been on my watchlist, that's how I noticed this new creation). No idea if you want it to stay, but I thought it best that you were at least aware of it. Fram (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry. I had no idea that I could not do this. If you could, please delete the other ones I created. Words cannot express how sorry I am. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always had a cautious approach to that policy. I guess I overestimated my knowledge. I have not read the deletion discussion, and I never plan on doing so. Would you mind deleting the G7's I tagged for the same reason? Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I "locally locked" myself with a 3-day wikibreak. I just came back to assure you that nothing like this will ever happen again. I committed a BLP:CRIME violation back in May, and learned from that. I will take this time to read all policies on living people more thoroughly so that this will be the last time I screw up like this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sadly you freezed the page in the wrong version, fellowmellow pushed his imaginary translation, giving a source that doesn't support it, over the official translation used for decades Norschweden (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tbh the page mad me laugh, but afaik, usually the pre-edit war state is the one that is to be blocked from editing, now the vandal "won" the editwar, even tho multiple users showed that he was wrong Norschweden (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You see, Norschweden continues to mislead, unfortunately. His edits are unsourced. I requested a proper English translation, he failed to provide an English translated source. The name was changed and the translation goes to construction. I have told him, on numerous occasions, that he can’t edit something without sources. He claims he did, but he didn’t provide the necessary source. I ask of you not to remove the protection because he is the actual vandal, who is trying to get his way. The users… "one user" to be precise actually was editing about "community (with interior), not construction." The source as I requested was provided, for building there was no providing. So his claims that "multiple users" proved me wrong, is nothing, but a bizarre allegation. FellowMellow (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from here, in my course of countering both COI and UPE it is very common practice for editors who have a vested interest in the article they are creating to vehemently move back to mainspace articles which has been drafitified. sometimes, rather than even moving the article back to mainspace, they copy the source code and paste it and make into a new article thus making drafitication impossible. I get worked up sometimes and kick the article out of mainspace by sending the article to their user space, but per WP:Draftify that isn’t good practice, what you want to do is officially make a complaint of the editor and the relevant article here thus more eyes can be looking at it, then what you do next is to proceed to nominate the article for deletion. I hope this helps. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the two examples I cited I believe there is no vested interest. Both users really believe they help Wikipedia and whoever sends their articles to draft makes harm. One of the articles I AfDed and it was deleted; the creator did not react properly, voted keep multiple times, and generally insisted that the topic is notable without bringing any arguments. Both had issues pointed out at their talk pages and decided to ignore them. I am afraid if it becomes too bad topic bans might be in order, but otherwise there is nothing to do here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding [142], where do you discuss the close? On-wiki of off-wiki? If onwiki, I would like to read the discussion, so I would appreciate it if you provided a link. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A complie of all ancesty pages in to one to show reaL data of modern racial compsition with the sources there.. and it is removed.. very bad editing from you and xuxo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikkustra1 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better decentralization.gov.ua instead of gromada.info
Hello! I noticed that you use a lot gromada.info for links. I think that better to use decentralization.gov.ua links instead like [144] (this is just example). And below I will explain why it is better.
decentralization.gov.ua is an official governmental website which is maintained by Ministry of Communities and Territories Development. And gromada.info is the website of a private IT company, whose business is to develop web-sites for different institution, the last year mainly new hromadas. Yes, they borrow a lot of info from decentralization.gov.ua (which is under public license, thus all is OK), translate it to Russian and present it in a nice way. But it is much more reliable to refer to an official governmental website. First, because any company may much more easy to closed website than any ministry. Secondly, because this way you (not knowing this) promoting a private IT company, which is also is not nice. --Heanor (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in hromada.info I can immediately find all information I need: for a given locality, which hromada it belongs; for a given hromada, which raion it belongs and which raion it belonged to before 2020, and in a structural way. Whereas the two first points should be on the government website (though the navigation is horrible, and they put context ads pretty much as well), the third one, which is crucial, is not there, or, at least, I can not find it. Whereas we could probably be fine with localities citing the government website, it is certainly not ok with the articles about raions, which I am also working on. They can indeed get down, and I hope they are going to be arxived before they get down (the fact that we cite them helps the arxivation). In my workflow, however, using hromada.org is way more convenient, first, because of the structure, and second, because they use Russian, whereas the ministry understandably do not. So I am afraid I will stay with them until I finish the job sometime middle of the next year.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, what I thought are ads are their own materials. Ok, I think I would be willing to use the ministry refs on the pages about localities, but I would stick to the hromada.info on the pages about districts, since the info on the former raions is much better accessible.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday greetings (2021)
Ymblanter,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reaching out to you because you're the only Russian speaker that I've seen around on-wiki, and I'd like to know if this article seems notable. It may be that this movement is clearly notable and because of my location I've simply never heard of it. Unfortunately, I've had to rely on machine translations of the cited sources while doing cleanup, but several are PDFs, or other publications, which prevent me from assessing their reliability and independence from the article subject. I'd really appreciate it if you had time to take a glance at this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the reliability of the references: 1 - an academic article in a conference proceedings book, the book was reviewed, but no indication separate contributions were peer-reviewed; 2 - a student presentation at a conference, not peer-reviewed, I would say not a RS; 3 - similar to 1; 4 - low-impact journal published in Ukraine, presumably peer-reviewed, an academic work (the journal is published by a university); 5 - a deadlink, and is supposed to reference the fact that the organization is legally registered, would not establish notability in any case, a primary source; 6 - typical for Ukrainian media, looks like a media publication, but in fact is just a report of a blog of a non-notable person, definitely not a RS; 7 - slightly better than 5, looks like kind of RS, Daily Mail level; 8 - a web portal controlled by the Orthodox church, I would say hardly a RS; 9 - slightly better than 7; 10 - would never pass RSN, not a RS; 11 - see 6, cites a primary source. I have never heard of the movement (which by itself does not say anything, I do not live in Eastern Europe), but for me the notability is on the edge. AfD could go either way.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have actually seen this (it is linked from the ANI), thanks. I do not think anything else from my side is needed for the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snowboarding Athlete Edits
Adding a link to each athlete's profile on Infinite Degrees is not promotion. It's clear if you visit the site, it gives a catalog of tricks that each athlete has done. This is purely for reference and learning about what each athlete does. The goal by linking Infinite Degrees pages is that people have a better idea of what these athletes are doing when they are doing these death defying stunts. If you want to progress the sport and make things more transparent into what they are doing, it makes sense to add the links as Wikipedia is one of the main sources that people go to when they look up these riders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmichigan7 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And using Wikipedia to promote the site is certainly not ok. When reliable sources start referencing it, we may consider adding these external links.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly by linking the site, I'm not promoting the site itself. The link references the athlete's page on Infinite Degrees which contains videos of tricks that they have done. It is promoting the athlete and their athletic achievements. It's the same thing when someone references an X Games profile or FIS profile, except this site is enriched with video. Furthermore, adding text referenced with video is the definition of what an external link is for from here WP:ELMAYBE. Finally, adding text referenced with video is providing a primary source of what these athletes are doing. Unsure where you are coming from here bud. --Bmichigan7 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I fail to see how spamming Wikipedia articles by links is not promoting the site. I do not think we are going anywhere from here. Primary sources btw are not allowed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken, these are not primary sources, these are secondary sources attached with video of the event. Furthermore, spamming would imply that these links are not providing any value. In fact, they are providing detailed information about the run or trick they did to quantify why they placed they did. There are plenty instances of video attached to the articles that have been edited.--Bmichigan7 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are primary sources and are not allowed. I am not sure how you decided they are secondary sources. Btw are you associated with this website?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Primary in the sense where it is a direct account of what happened, but secondary in the sense that the publisher is not the one doing the trick. Primary sources are allowed if they are unbiased WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD which it's clear that these videos are. And no, affiliated with the US Ski and Snowboard team but not the site. Just trying to bring more understanding to snowboarding before the Olympics and this is the only site that has reliable information on what athletes do. Even snowboarder great Danny Davis said that half the time american news outlets get the trick names wrong and it frustrates the living hell out of riders who do this everyday.--Bmichigan7 (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure how you are deeming this site not reliable or where you are getting this idea that there is no consensus. Out of all the edits I've made in the last week, you are the only one that seems to object. It's clear you don't have much knowledge of freestyle snowboarding or skiing given one click to the website would explain what athletes are doing. Not going to go post on a page where people are asking wikiislam and victimsofcommunism are reliable sources when what I am posting is direct, unbiased, and knowledgable insight with Infinite Degrees.--Bmichigan7 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, but I have an obsession on them. I guess that's fine with me on those pages, but except on Wednesday when I get access to the 30-day extended-confirmed protection, I need to extended-confirmed protect the untitled Mario movie due to vandalism regarding of voice actors whom are unsourced.--AVeganKid (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption by IP/new accounts
The Niš article has had disruptive edits today by an IP and then two new accounts. Their edits are removal of content or addition of a frivolous and tendentious POV tag. The content is the result of the community consensus, as can been seen on that article's tp, and the talk page of History of Niš too. Can you take a look and put a semi-protection? Although experienced editors reverted, the person behind the IP and the two new accounts insists on their own. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no problem, apologies accepted. However please have in mind that the IP edits are not obvious vandalism. They might still be vandalism, if they replace correct statements with incorrect ones, but in this case, for your ANI thing, please try to explain what is exactly wrong with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mike Novikoff reverted several times for removing flags and symbols in some Russia oblast templates, but it is recommended to need a flag and symbol per template. But they noticed for incident for edit warring weeks ago, see it here: [146] --49.150.112.127 (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to go to ANI, they have been there a week ago and apparently have not learned anything. I will not take any action myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are edit-warring, not me. If you are not capable of learning you should not be editing Wikipedia. Concerning "he" vs "they", the Wikipedia default is "they", so I would suggest that you add a corresponding userbox on your user page if you are not happy with that (and be prepared that user will refer to you by "they" anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it is recommended to need a flag and symbol per template – My dear IP user, can you please point your beautiful finger on where on this God's green earth it is recommended? — Mike Novikoff08:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ymblanter! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
![[114]](https://i.imgur.com/IWnEj2M.png){kind=link}