User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Oct


Quarter Million Award

The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring Low back pain (estimated annual readership: 461,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Low back pain to Good Article status.

Well done! I really admire your work on these high-traffic medical topics. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nutrition

You would of had to read the discussion to understand the nutrition comment. Also, this discussion is not about an edit, it is about the article not having a neutral point of view. Campoftheamericas (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Campoftheamericas, OK, that discussion is still happening under a subsection named "Article Edit"--a subsection you created, so I thought that was supposed to be the topic still. I hope you won't mind if I create a new subsection head for that NPOV thread. Zad68 01:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lyme and diet discussion

This discussion may be useful in the future: Ketogenic diet and Lyme. I've not encountered Wordreader before that I can recall-- good stuff! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't normally participate at RfA

But since we've worked together, for example on low back pain, I figured I'd at least ask a question. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"I don't normally participate at RFA, but when I do, I prefer to ask essay questions..." You just had to, didn't you?! Answered... Zad68 15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI that didn't work as you're weren't also re-signing. ;-) Yes, I couldn't resist. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Didn't know that was a requirement! I thought you got a ping just whenever someone creates a new link to your User or User Talk, thanks for that. Zad68 15:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess I should have spared you the essay question at the beginning. O well. There's a first time for everything. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Yeah, it is fine now. Congrats with the new mop . Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Cucurbita peer review

I just listed Cucurbita at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cucurbita/archive1. I saw some edits tonight you made to Capuchin monkey. I fixed some references there and then found your edits and talk page. It seems you know a lot about medical/pharmacology issues. If you have time, would you be so kind as to look at this article, especially the medical/pharmacological issues, which are in Cucurbita#Chemical_constituents? I'd greatly appreciate it. Peter coxhead told me about MEDRS and I want to both comply with policies and make the article as good as possible. If something is not in compliance can you work with me to find appropriate sources and wording? I appreicate any assistance you can provide. HalfGig (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks HalfGig for the kind words! I'm interested in helping out at that peer review, I'll stop by. Zad68 01:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. There's some in Cucurbita#Uses too.HalfGig (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Posted my notes at the PR, HalfGig, hope they are useful. Let me know if you want me to look at something else, and let me know if/when it goes to FAC. Zad68 19:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent review. I worked through them except for the copyedit that it surely needs, but I need a good wordsmith for that. Any suggestions? And please see the posting by Chiswick Chap at 11:37, 12 October 2013. Thoughts on that one? HalfGig (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator!

Hello Zad68! I am pleased to report that I have closed your request for adminship as "successful." Welcome to the administrator corps; you may find WP:New admin school helpful as you try out your new tools. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrator Zad68, that has a nice ring to it. An obviously well-deserved promotion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
28bytes and I posted at the same time (by a second or so apart); I combined the sections. Would have posted a few minutes before now, but was waiting for 28bytes to post. After a few minutes, I got impatient (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Congrats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes congrats. But I'm still waiting for a reply to question 8! The reason I was saying all that is because I don't want WP:MEDRS to devolve into something we beat over the head of new people unnecessarily. Please don't ever remove primary sources when they should be WP:preserved. So why did you sound dismissive of Cassidy 2008? I think you were a bit unfair to the source, no? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Biosthmors, deciding "when they should be preserved" is really the crux of the issue, isn't it? I thought I was pretty clear in my answers to you about when I thought they should be preserved; you might feel differently. I want to continue this conversation with you, I just dropped a note on your User Talk and I plan on starting an email conversation about it with you. Zad68 02:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Having not seen the RfA, I am happy to see you get the bit. 107 unopposed is amazing, but, honestly, from my experience of dealing with you, I guess my only regret is that I couldn't make it 108. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Congrats! Now feel free to place Template:Administrator topicon and/or Template:User wikipedia/Administrator on your userpage! ///EuroCarGT 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who participated at the RFA, and to those who stopped by here. It's a nerve-wracking process and I was humbled to the point of being stunned by the result. Zad68 02:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations. I could not vote but am pleased to see you recognized for what you do here.89.204.138.21 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations and good luck in your new role. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations Zad- although we often vehemently disagree( Joyce might have said vehe-mentally) on content, policy interpretation and rationale( Circumcision -cough please sir ), your energy,patience, diligence,erudition and good intention cannot be doubted. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 06:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Tumadoireacht this was a very kind note, thank you. And although we often disagree, I've picked up on your sense of humor and obvious love for language. I had one go at trying to read Ulysses... I heard that the concept of the book club began due to readers trying to work their way through that book. I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were! Zad68 14:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The doffed beanie award
I had honestly believed that gone were the days when editors could successfully apply for adminship after extensive editing of controversial topics. I you'd told me that someone can still get approved (with better than 100 to 0 support!) while editing articles like Water fluoridation, Andrew Wakefield, and Premenstrual dysphoric disorder during the nomination I never would have believed it. My hat (pictured) is off to you. If there's anything I can do to assist you, please let me know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Quadell, whaddaya talkin' about, RFA is a breeze, everybody knows that! Thanks for the beanie-doffing, and—careful!—I might take you up on your offer! Zad68 14:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

AIAV

Hello! Great to see you active on AIAV, been backlogged for a while! Also great to see you do good admin work since you recently became one! ///EuroCarGT 03:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks EuroCarGT! Trying out my shiny new toys... I'm still a bit nervous hitting the block button, but I've been working alongside some experienced admins and also getting others to review my work. So far so good... Zad68 03:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, well some blocks I'm a bit more confident about than others... Zad68 03:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking that vandal—the experience was a first for me, I've got to say! And now I feel keyed up, just as if I was being shouted at face-to-face. Quite an interesting place Wikipedia is... —Neil 03:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Neil, no problem... the trick is not to let them get under your skin. Looks like you're finding your way around very nicely with the article work too. Hope you like it here and decide to stay active! Zad68 03:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Cash vandalism

Hello. I can understand your confusion. A simple glance at the article is not sufficient to see what is happening here. This same user, under different names and IP addresses, has repeatedly changed that image, despite being asked not, has never provided an edit summary, and refuses to discuss his changes. This pattern, over the course of several months, is disruptive and blockable. Is that more clear? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite, thanks for the additional background. The way to handle disruption from multiple accounts targeting one page is to try some protection, so I applied six months of semi to the article. I'm still not sure about the changes to the image, but there's enough vandalism in the past few weeks to justify semi, and it looked like the last time it was protected (earlier this year) it got two months of semi, so the next thing to try is a step up, so six months. Let's give that a try, let me know if there are more issues. Zad68 03:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Outdated generalization

Re your revert, discuss the generalization on the science, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation#Generalization_based_on_11_year_old_study_criteria Prokaryotes (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion, will reply there. Zad68 13:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Health effects of salt

Greetings, Zach. The Salt article is a current GA nominee that I am reviewing, and based on my recommendation the nominator moved the information on health effects to a new article, Health effects of salt, leaving just a summary behind in "Salt". (I figured that research on health effects would be the most controversial part of the Salt article, and it suffers a bit from the list-of-most-recent-research-without-context syndrome.) Anyway, I thought you might be interested in the new article; it seems related to the type of thing you usually edit. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead Quadell... Totally agree with spinning off the health effects to a subarticle per WP:SUMMARY, and I do want to look at it. I've been having too much fun trying out my admin toys over the past few days to look at much content (shame on me!) but hopefully they'll lose their novelty soon. Zad68 02:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Recent IPvandal Block request

I'm kind of new to the "catching vandal" biz. I'm a new student of User Hahc21's Vandalism Class. I'll get better. Was the level 3 warning OK? Thanks for the explanation # AIV. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, on a side note, can you check the article Vic Roznovsky. The last para seems like vandalism. Hall of Fame? "goldy" children? Looks like prior vandalism that was not caught. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
...and I'm a new admin, Buster7, so we're both green at this! What I've been finding out this first week of mine as an admin is that there's a fairly broad range of discretion allowed for determining how much disruption is enough and what to do about it. Your report was just fine, I think, and you probably shouldn't do anything different than you have been. Another admin patrolling AIV might have blocked based on your report, and that would have been fine too. In fact, today I saw another somewhat similar IP reported to AIV, and I while I was investigating and blocked it, another admin had marked the AIV report as "not enough to block" and declined it. When that other admin saw that I had blocked the IP, they simply archived the report without any follow up, even though we didn't agree on the outcome. It was because of that sequence that I didn't block this time! I think reports like that one I declined are just about 50/50 edge cases. So, keep patrolling, use your best judgment, and this is as much art as it is science. Zad68 20:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Congrats! I ran in a couple of months ago---unsuccessful but close. So now I'm in training for the next time. Good Luck! ```Buster Seven Talk 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the "expresso" page

it is currently incorrect, and you said "sock" -- sockpuppet? -- and yet, I am not a sockpuppet at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.35 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll say this again: I am not a sockpuppet. 193.109.199.35 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
193.109.199.35, if you're not, sorry about that, but we've been having problems at those articles. Until the protection expires, could you please use the article Talk pages to propose your changes? Use the {{edit protected}} template, and be sure to cite reliable sources. Thanks for bearing with us while we deal with disruptive editors. Zad68 20:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Why do I need to quote a "reliable source" for, like, a word? that, like, exists? in, like, dictionaries? Whatever, no wonder Wikipedia isn't regarded as a reliable source, when maniacs like "Yworo" above can get a page shut-down simply by shouting accusations and insults. I think I'll stick to my encyclopedias that actually cost me money, thanks though. 193.109.199.35 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would you want to edit Wikipedia without knowing the rules. Verifiability by citing reliable sources is required. Why would you want to use an encyclopedia where anyone can add anything without supporting it? That'd be way worse than Wikipedia. Don't let the door hit you on the rear end on your way out. Yworo (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: How did you know

I could tell through comparing the IP's edit history with that of the sockmaster; both revolve exclusively around the addition of blatantly incorrect content added to quite specific football and talent show articles. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Mattythewhite but how did you know which sockmaster to look at in the first place? There was nothing in the AIV or block log to indicate that Football boys was the sockmaster... I guess that's my real question. Zad68 20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been reverting this individual's edits ever since Football boys was the used account, so it's just down to experience of dealing with this person and becoming familiar with his/her edit pattern. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Mattythewhite ah OK so it's a matter of personal experience. I've seen a number of other vandals like that, who make random unsourced changes to pop culture articles. It'd great if we had an "AIV 10 Most Wanted" list (or the like) where frequently-encountered socks or general vandal types could be documented so that we could share our experiences on how to identify and handle them. Zad68 21:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zad68. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Message added 00:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

///EuroCarGT 00:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For being concise, patient and making a right decision! ///EuroCarGT 00:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit War on CAIR page

HI

I am responding to your message about looking into the edits on the Wikipedia entry for CAIR.

He is what I am deleting -

"A federal appeals court removed the label for all parties and sealed the list on October 20, 2010, ruling the designation was the result of "simply an untested allegation of the Government, made in anticipation of a possible evidentiary dispute that never came to pass.""

This is simply wrong; in 2010, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals UNsealed the 7/1/09 decision of Jorge Solis. No one at any time removed anyone from the Attatchment A list, or removed any labels.

Rather than engage in an edit war, I will leave Roscelese's entry intact, and write a brief description of the current status of CAIR in regards to the Attachment A list, and let the reader decide for themselves which version they prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Holy Land Foundation page

This is a link to the talk page for the Holy Land Foundation on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development

Under the section titled "The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting" you can see I told ahead of time that I planned to add this section. I received no response. So, I made my edit, and it has been deleted, by I do not know who. You can read the text for yourself. I do not see any violations. I would like to put this back up, and am asking for guidance. Thank you. Livingengine1 (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Livingengine1, unfortunately I really have no knowledge about this topic and do not edit in this subject area. My only involvement was regarding editing behavior. I can only point you to the same resources I already have pointed you to. You've chosen a very contentious subject area to edit in, good luck with it. Zad68 03:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Was wondering if you had any suggestions

Hey Zad, I included a section on the history and culture as you suggested; I was wondering if you had any other suggestions for the page, since you seem to know what's expected of FA articles. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that article Seppi333, I will look. Zad68 13:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Help for blocking request.

Hi, can you block this person IP 198.209.77.235 because he/she always blank this page.--Ng Pey Shih 07 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done But Ng Pey Shih 07 next time please file a report at WP:AIV. Zad68 14:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay.--Ng Pey Shih 07 (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Livingengine1 again

User has continued to add in the BLP violations both under his own username and under an IP. [1] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, yup,  Done blocked 24h, article semi-protected 3 days. Zad68 19:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Overdue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

helpful script

Hello Zad. I saw you recently at AIV and thought I'd let you in on a helpful script that can easily help you see if a user is blocked.

importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js')

This helpful script will show all blocked editors with a strikeout through their username or IP address (both on the watch list and signatures). I find it highly helpful and maybe you might too. Take care and a late congrats on the new role. Calmer Waters 03:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Calmer Waters thanks much! I have the one that makes admin IDs have a blue background but I haven't seen that one. I do have to add a few new scripts to my vector.js and other files to make myself a bit more efficient and less error-prone. (Is there a comprehensive list of these sorts of magic admin scripts somewhere?) Zad68 03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure about a list, but I would heartily recommend User:MastCell/user-rights.js (although I'm admittedly a bit biased). It adds a small bar when you go to a userpage or user talkpage which lists the editor's rights (autoconfirmed, sysop, checkuser, etc), the date of account creation, the # of edits, and whether they're currently blocked. MastCell Talk 03:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sweet. Mind if I take a few also :) I saw a list once but that was years ago. Did find [2] if you get bored, and [3] Calmer Waters 03:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks... feel free to talk about more awesome scripts while I just sit here and take notes. Zad68 03:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
As you said in your block summary, it was persistent sneaky vandalism. Since all that the anon was doing was changing the numbers, it wasn't obvious that it was vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

More on the health effects of salt

Since Salt is a current "Good article" nomination that I'm reviewing, it's understandably being scrutinized to ensure any health claims in the article are reliable. A user has started discussion here, and I would love it if you found time to comment. Many of his comments and edits seem focused on removing material that casts doubt on whether healthy people should reduce their salt intake. On the one hand, he may be responsibly removing silly fad-science claims that have no place in a general article like "salt". On the other hand, he may be removing reliably-sourced information that suggests a conclusion he disagrees with. In all humility, as a layman, I honestly have no way of knowing which it is. Is there any way you could weigh in and help ensure that the brief summary of health benefits in the "salt" article is as reliable and neutral as it can reasonably be? Thanks so much for your time, – Quadell (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Honored you'd ask me, looking now. Zad68 01:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Quadell you were right to ask for another opinion, that section needs work before it can pass GA. Replied there. Zad68 02:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
As the nominator of the article Salt at GAN, I thank you for your comments on the "Health effects" section. I have no specific knowledge of medicine and know little of how medical-related articles or sections should be treated on Wikipedia. Having removed the previous health effects section in Salt to create a new article Health effects of salt, I have tried to summarize it, mostly keeping the same references (which I largely did not check). Obviously, either the original section was poor or I have made a pretty poor job of summing it up, or both. I could address the points you raise in the GA review about the various sources but the section would likely still be unsatisfactory. Would you consider rewriting the section to the necessary high standard? If you could, it would be very helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth thanks for taking the comments well. I know what it's like to have your GA nominee picked apart! I think the original health content that was there wasn't good. I'll at least give you a running start at getting that section going, give me a bit of time to look at it. Zad68 14:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful feedback. – Quadell (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Quadell no problem, just updated the GA1 with a list of suggested sources as you were leaving me this note. I provided the sources and links to them, why not let the editor have a go at summarizing them. All the info is there, just needs to be summarized. Zad68 16:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth has rewritten the section, based at least partly on your "distilled library of salt study" / cheatsheet. I was wondering what you think now, Zach? – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Quadell, Cwmhiraeth - At first glance looks much better but just needs a bit of cleanup for WP:MEDMOS, will look at it more closely! Zad68 14:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Quadell, Cwmhiraeth - I'm done, let me know what you think or if you have further anything. Zad68 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy with your version, thank you for tidying the section up. What's the problem with the source you have tagged "not in citation given"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Great! Let's continue this at the GA1. Zad68 17:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help in improving the Health section of Salt, which Quadell has just passed as a GA. As I mentioned above, I have had little to do with medical topics and the tutorial you gave on improving the section should help when I come across health aspects in other articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure, Cwmhiraeth, it was great collaborating with you on it. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions about that sort of content in the future. I may even be able to provide an answer, and (if we're lucky) it may even be right. A big overview article like Salt is especially difficult, because it touches on so many different topics, and each one of those topics can have their own guidelines for sourcing and style. Fine work! Zad68 19:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent AE

Hi, since you recently closed the Tumbleman case, just letting you know that there's loose end in this case -- the Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs) sock is still active Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman. vzaak (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Vzaak, I'm aware of that editor... That editor has been discussed at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman sockpuppet investigation and it's up to the Checkusers and others there to handle it. Zad68 14:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Dearest Vzaak -- I *really* resent your off-handedly referring to me as a "sock" that needs to be swept aside, as though this has somehow been conclusively demonstrated. We both know it hasn't been, nor can it be, because I'm not Tumbleman. I'm a guy who's been following Rupert Sheldrake's career for over a decade now. a guy who was compelled to jump in when it became evident that any voice in support of Sheldrake was met with coordinated pseudo-skepticism.
It seems your tack has been moving to rid yourself of people with weird ideas instead of dealing with the ideas themselves. With all due respect, you should give the latter a spin.
Oh boy chicken again (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, your note regarding this block [4] gets cut off before the link to the discussion where consensus was generated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom thanks, I learned a lot today, including the fact that the blocking form does not help you at all make sure the number of characters you enter will fit in the stored block message.  :( Zad68 19:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Zad, I've reclosed the AE thread, with your "not an AE block" block clarification in the hat. Whether or not it's an AE block, I guess the fact that it's done means keeping the AE thread open any longer isn't needed. I fully agree with the block, by the way. Oh, and I see you're a newbie admin. Welcome aboard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering how an Editor can go from a week-long block Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Conspiracy theories - Rupert Sheldrake to an indefinite block overnight. At least there exists an appeals process although I hope it be reviewed by an uninvolved Admnistrator. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and once an admin is convinced that an editor is not here to help build an encyclopedia, there is not requirement to fill out a certain number of forms and pass through multiple stages of due process before the editor can be indef blocked. One of the fundamental duties of all admins is to protect the project from harm, so that the hard work we all put into it isn't endangered by people who have other motivations for coming here. I think that the indef block of Tumbleman and his socks are reasonable applications of that duty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. I came here specifically to thank Zad68 for helping the project—thanks Zad68! Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Disappointed

Sure, I'll revert the edits. This was honestly not a malicious attempt...I've refrained from editing medical aspects of the "circumcision" page anymore, as per our discussion. I thought that the foreskin page was different, however- again, I was going by the French version, which has that page as linking to both the medical and sexuality portals.
The aspects I discussed were purely sexual and anatomical; I did not discuss any medical procedures whatsoever. Does pure anatomical information - not an anatomical procedure - fall under WP:MEDRS? (Serious question) I see nothing on the page about "anatomy". Can we not, for example, quote "Gray's Anatomy" (1858)? I know that there a lot of science pages, such as Newton's law of universal gravitation, which use a mix of both new and rather old sources. There are also currently very old sources on the page I edited (eg, Gairdner (1949)), and the only issue on the page seems to be a primary sources template, rather than an outdated sources template. So I didn't think that the WP:MEDRS 5-year rule applied to anatomy pages.
Again, sorry if there was any misunderstanding. I'll revert the edits.
(But just as a head's up, I am going to be editing the brit milah page soon, so please be aware of that. Despite appearances, I'm really not trying to subvert these pages behind your back, which is why I'm telling you this!)
Best --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

MosheA, thank you very much indeed. WP:MEDRS applies to all biomedical content anywhere in any article on Wikipedia. Statements about the neurological components and their functions are plainly biomedical content, I'd have a very hard time seeing how they wouldn't be. And even if they weren't, I don't see it could make sense to reach back many decades to over century ago in time for sourcing on something well-studied with up-to-date sourcing available. Why would we would ever be citing Gray's Anatomy 1st Edition (1858) when we have Gray's Anatomy 40th Edition (2008) available, see here. Once again, please stop assuming that content that exists in other articles either here on en.WP or on other-language Wikipedias must be fine and good to import across articles. In most cases, it's not OK to do that. The Foreskin article has a lot of problems and really needs to be gutted and rewritten from scratch. I can see how you might think the edit you made must be fine because it was in line with the quality of what's there already, but adding poor content will only make the problem worse. I might look in at Brit milah to double-check any biomedical content; other editors watching that article might be looking at other aspects of edits made there, just FYI.

Sorry if my tone seems a bit raised here, I care quite a bit about Wikipedia's biomedical content, and want to ensure it is accurate, up-to-date and represents the best quality sources accurately. Zad68 16:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Please accept these super-salty pretzels!
Thanks so much for your advice and research! (I'm glad it was taken with more than a grain of salt.) You really helped bring the article up to GA status, and you helped make sure its quality is up to the highest standards. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
*munch munch*.. Thanks! Ugh, why does my heart feel funny? *munch munch*... Zad68 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Subtle vandalism

I didn't do much follow up after responding to the ANI post... but I wondered if you'd reached out to User:Thibbs who had dealt with some very similar vandalism to what you were reporting (about 5 months ago or so), and if anything else had come of that. I've been occupied by other things and so I haven't been very involved lately. But the focus on cartoon and music articles seems to be prominent. There's a certain genre of music articles that seem to be targeted but I'll let you discover that on your own and see if it matches with my experience. If you come across anything new in that regards I'd be happy to help, time permitting. I think edit filter is a good approach, but it has some obvious technical limits, so the medium term solution is a good bot to flag these sorts of edits, much in the way cluebot has done for more obvious vandalism. It's obviously a big goal, but one worth pursuing. Shadowjams (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams yes I'd like to see follow-up on that but as I'm not so tremendously experienced with those areas I was hoping to be in more of a "me too, I'll support" rather than a driving role. Zad68 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi Zad. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole thanks for the even-handed notification about the appeal... I personally have conflicted feelings about it, may comment there if I can clarify my own thoughts about it. Zad68 00:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Zad. Could you tell me what "SDS" stands for. I haven't seen that before. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO sure by that I meant the Standard Discretionary Sanctions we were discussing in the previous subsection. Zad68 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on the promotion

I just saw the vote now; would have voted 'yes' if I saw before. I've seen your name a lot in the vandalism-reversion department. Enjoy the tools. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Jprg1966 appreciate the support, thanks!! Zad68 14:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman

I just moved the rest of the stuff in User talk:Tumbleman to the Archive, including your final words to him and a pink box. I left a copy of the words and the box on the talk page, but edited the words slightly to remove some potential confusion. (I removed the reference to "above", which isn't there any more.) If you disagree with what I did, feel free to revert it. I'm just trying to tidy things up. Lou Sander (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lou Sander, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I just took a look at the Tumbleman User Talk and I'm fine with how it looks now. Zad68 13:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for closing the loop. Whew! Lou Sander (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical failure in page protection

Hi, your recent semi-protection of List of ongoing military conflicts has somehow failed (see [5]). Can you check what is wrong?GreyShark (dibra) 17:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Greyshark09, I didn't apply semi-protection, I applied pending changes. I decided the level of vandalism wasn't enough to warrant semi-protection, but did warrant pending changes. It's only getting about one bad edit a day from non-autoconfirmed users, and that bad edit can just be declined through pending changes. It looks like it's working properly to me. Zad68 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

IPs

Your judgement of IPs were wrong. I responded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Drmies_recent_edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.46.132 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Block of Tumbleman

Hey, User:Zad68,

I stumbled upon a comment you made to another Admin about your block of Tumbleman and found that you changed the rationale for your block. It leaves me with a couple questions regarding it:

a) Was Tumbleman innocent then of violating AE discretionary sanctions so you didn't block him based on AE/DS but for other reasons? What reasons were they?
b) Did discretionary sanctions only allow for a one year block and the admins preferred an indefinite block so that's why he got a regular admin block rather than an AE/DS block?

My reasons for asking the questions is that I'm beginning to wonder if AE/DS are being selectively applied. If Tumbleman wasn't really banned because of them, than the threat of them might be being misused. I see a couple of Editors have taken to placing warning notices on the Talk Pages of other Editors warning them that if they continue with their editing on sensitive topics, they could be blocked based on AE D/S. It makes me wonder if this warning is being used to intimidate Editors into abandoning their editing projects or if it is a valid concern that holding certain opinions makes one vulnerable to AE/DS. These warnings are only being posted on the Talk Pages of Editors who hold different points of view from the Editors posting the notices.

Thanks for any answers you can provide, Zad68! Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, you must be talking about this conversation I had with EdJohnston? There was no finding of "innocence" or "guilt" at the AE discussion, in its final disposition it was not closed with an AE outcome, but was rather closed as moot after I blocked. This is clear from the closing statement on the collapsed discussion. My block was based on the consensus of the five other admins that looked at Tumbleman's involvement, and determined it was not productive and not likely to become productive. Initially I thought based on the AE experience of the admins involved in the discussion that it should be an AE block, which is what I did, but then something popped up in my head from memory that AE SDS blocks aren't supposed to be indef. I looked again at the SDS description and that turned out to be the case, and I also could not find an example in the past year where an AE enforcement action resulted in an indef block, so that was enough for me to switch the block category from AE to a "regular" admin block. EdJohnston also brought up a point about insufficient AE warning, which also looked to be true, but that wasn't my original basis for changing the block category.

It is possible that AE requests are being misused. However, I don't think the Tumbleman AE request was completely unfounded. I do see discussions on the Sheldrake Talk page that discussed WP:ARBCOM and Discretionary Sanctions and remedies, and Tumbleman was involved in them, but I also don't see a clear statement "This article is under Standard Discretionary Sanctions per Arbitration Remedies" or related warning. Assuming good faith, it's possible that it was just assumed after all that discussion, including discussion of of WP:ARBCOM and sanctions, that everybody knew about it. Therefore, I would not consider that Tumbleman AE request to be frivolous, entirely unfounded, or pure harassment.

It's possible that the AE warnings are being misused, but as this very case points out, the warnings are necessary for AE requests to result in AE actions. Maybe the standard AE warning message itself could be made a little softer and friendlier, like we did with our {{Uw-ewsoft}} message. Zad68 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I was uncertain about posing these questions to you, Zad68, but this is the best possible response I could get! I'm glad you saw my query as a request for information and not as an accusation. I greatly appreciate you taking time to explain the situation to me, from an Admin's point of view.
I realize that a group of Admins had voiced their opposition to Tumbleman's behavior and that opposition doesn't just disappear. He was going to get a block of some duration. My main concern is the use of AE D/S, instead of posing the issue at AN/I. It seems that when disputes are brought to AN/I, the discussion is open and public, anyone can weigh in, either for or against, and the conversation occurs over 3 or 4 days. AE D/S seems to be much more shadowy to me, the proceedings are less visible, fewer Editors know about them or the guidelines for imposing sanctions (what exact behavior warrants a sanction?) and decisions seem to be made in a matter of hours, not days. I also understand now that a warning has to be given before a case brought to AE which I was not aware of before.
I've posted a general question about AE D/S on one of ARBCOM's Talk Pages and I hope an arbitrator responds. ARBCOM has so many rules that guide their proceedings but the imposition of AE D/S seems less than clear to me. Thank you for your help in understanding the process better! Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem Liz. ANI and AE are different tools for different problems, and have different parameters.

ANI can be a sledge hammer. At ANI, anybody can be brought for any reason, there's lengthy discussion, and if there's a community consensus for a sanction, it gets applied. The sanction can be anything, including an indef block or a complete site ban. The only way it can be overturned is with a future community consensus. I think theoretically ARBCOM can overturn a community consensus block but I'm not sure that happens in practice.

AE is supposed to be a scalpel, and it's designed to address problems in only the most conflict-prone areas of Wikipedia. Only editors working on content under ARBCOM sanctions can be brought, and that's got to be significantly less than 0.1% of the available content. It's faster than ANI because only one admin is required to make a decision, although often several weigh in before action is taken. Sanctions are limited. AE isn't any more "shadowy" because all discussions take place in the open and anyone can comment, but comments from those other than the closing admins are advisory in nature; closure is by admin discretion and not community consensus. AE serves a very valuable purpose by limiting the consumption of Wikipedia's finite conflict-resolution resources by those who are the most expert and prodigious at consuming those resources. Keep in mind that the establishment of AE and its discretionary sanctions are an expression of community consensus. AE has the power that it has because the Wikipedia community willed it to be so, and it continues to exist as it does because the Wikipedia community finds that it solves more problems than it causes. I'd think editors who have tried to do significant content development work in line with Wikipedia's content guidelines in the areas AE covers appreciate it. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than the alternative...

Pinging EdJohnston and MastCell to check my work... Zad68 18:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent analysis, Zad68! I guess I'll get directly to my concern and it's about the pseudoscience DS. I would think, in my limited knowledge, that the sanctions would target disruptive behavior on those articles that are judged to be "pseudoscience".
I am not advocating that any nonscientific views are presented to be factually true but I think, when you are talking about, for example, astrology, you first need to explain, "this is what astrology is based on" and then later say that there is no scientific basis to believe it is accurate. Describing some phenomena or belief system neutrally is not the same as saying it is true. But I see AE/DS being used against those who are neutral or sympathetic to these topics but not against disruption caused by those who are skeptical. I think that AE DS should focus on disruptive behavior (like edit warring or 3Rs), not against ideas or belief systems.
Just advocating this equal treatment and focus on conduct, not beliefs, has made some Editors targets and, therefore, they have received warnings about the content of their editing. I'm fully aware that the weight of WPs Admins might be against this position. But it's this concern that generated my questions.
Again, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Liz, I agree with you the adjudications should be made without preference to any particular POV. Are you saying that you believe the proportion of WP:ARB/PS adjudications against pro-pseudoscience editors is higher than those against anti-? Assuming good faith, it's possible the adjudications are being made fairly and in accordance with the actual evidence, but for whatever reason pro-pseudoscience editors are just less willing to go to AE than the anti-, or that the reality is that pro- editors behave poorly more often than the anti-. Regarding the article content, what you describe—"This is what astrology claims.... Science says this about those claims..."—is exactly how I'd hope those articles are developed. I haven't really done any editing in pseudoscience areas like Sheldrake to know, really. Zad68 19:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying that this is my perception of WP:ARB/PS. I don't think there is anyone who self-identifies as, "Yes, I'm pro-pseudoscience, rah!" It's a label applied to people who hold alternative beliefs or are sympathetic to them because clearly people who believe in, say, astrology do not believe it is pseudoscientific (but I would also argue that they don't think it is scientific either).
I think you are correct that those who are sympathetic or neutral to these areas are far less likely to go to AE and file a complaint and that is partially because some of them are quite new to editing at Wikipedia. And while I have engaged in some conversation on Talk Pages, I have not edited any of these articles myself, either. But, I think if I say any more on this matter, someone will pop in, saying I'm accusing someone of something and demanding I produce diffs. This is why I was trying to depersonalize this subject and talk about it in an abstract way, about rules and procedure rather than specific articles and Editors.
Thanks again, this has been a very fruitful conversation. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you blocked a disruptive editor who was being a WP:ENERGYSAPPER. Like all these things, blocking someone is never the most friendliest thing to do, but sometimes it's the most appropriate when users display basic WP:COMPETENCE issues with inability to comprehend policies and guidelines (WP:FRINGE) and have a bizarre understanding of science. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney yes I think that's what the WP:SOUP comment at the AE discussion was hitting on. Zad68 19:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Please deal with this case with caution

User:Tristan.andrade.136, a user who you blocked indefinitely, seems to be engaging in sockpuppetry with the account User:Tristan.136. However, I would ask that you please deal with this case carefully, as it seems to me this user is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies despite the warnings I left at the former account's talk page. Indeed, I highly doubt this user is even aware of the very existence of policy prohibiting block evasion via multiple accounts. Also, this user left a message at the former account's user talk page that seems to request unblocking without using the correct template.

As someone who thinks the Wikipedia community can be far too strict at times, I really don't want to see yet another user treated too harshly. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dogmaticeclectic, thanks for the note. I didn't see the "I'm sorry" message and he didn't use an unblock request template. I blocked the Tristan.136 account and unblocked the Tristan.andrade.136 account and left (what I hope are) messages friendly enough for a 10-year-old. Let me know if you think anything else needs to be done. Appreciate you keeping an eye on this young editor. Zad68 15:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious

arbitration
Thank you, "level-headed editor with experience working on high-profile and controversial topics", for quality articles on medical topics, such as Low back pain and Circumcision (the "most stressful but also the most educational thing"), for pictured Rules of content (wood and jellybeans), for believing in BRD, for "closer inspection" of your own view, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt thank you very much, this is a delightful surprise! Zad68 14:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hey there, you've recently warned me on edit warring. Thanks. Thought I would point out for your benefit that User:Roscelese has reverted the same edit five times. You seem to have missed that, so I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. I'm sure it escaped your attention for reasons entirely unrelated to your personal views on LGBT parenting. 136.159.142.129 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, it's entirely unrelated to any personal views I might or might not have. I know without a doubt that Roscelese is familiar with Wikipedia's rules regarding edit-warring; she's been blocked for it several times before. I reviewed Roscelese's edit history at the article and although it hasn't been great, it does not break the WP:3RR "bright line rule". As I am involved in the content at that article I cannot take any administrator action there. As your contribution history as an IP is less than one hour in total, and limited to just one article, I was unsure you're aware of the 3RR rule, which is why I left the warning with the links. The article is protected now, so use the Talk page. Zad68 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
If you saw edit-warring, Zad, you should have warned both editors, not just the IP. The protection of the article is also prejudicial against the IP because it allows a well-known POV-pusher to enforce her preferred version of the article while the IP is blocked from editing the article. Not fair, favoring one side over the other. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Help in cleaning up a protected talk page archive

Hi! Please remove the repeating (and vandalized) section "#Napoleon Dagalea 2" of WT:Tambayan Philippines/Archive20. (It occured when a troll removed[6] an entire section and two constructive editors (trying to revert the troll) readded it separately[7][8]. It also got vandalized later[9].) Thanks···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 03:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yessir, getting my mop out now... Zad68 03:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done I think. Cleaned up the vandalism in the archive and blocked MiszaBot Xll as an account clearly created for no good purpose. I also put a NOINDEX template on the archive page, which should achieve the purpose the vandalism was attempting to do. Check it out, let me know if anything else needs fixing. Zad68 03:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my language was not clear. I meant to say there are two copies of a section (#Napoleon Dagalea and #Napoleon_Dagalea_2). Also this edit was not vandalism. I am sorry for the confusion···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 03:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I will look at it again and fix it tomorrow. Zad68 03:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I should also be trouted for creating this unnecessary confusion.···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 04:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Vanischenu I think I got it fixed now. Zad68 18:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks a lot···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone is stalking me...

Who is John254 and why did someone name me as them? I can assure you I am unrelated to them. Someone is, on a multiple accounts accusing me of them. First an IP 174.241.112.39 address accused me, and then OSTheRobot did as well. But I live in Brunswick County, and I find it extremely unlikely they live near me. I would have replied to OSTheRobot, but they did it on Flyer22 page, so I didn't reply back. Also, I have a notification another IP said the same thing. I can give my IP address to show you I am unrelated. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 16:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dark Mistress, after I took a quick look, the behavior evidence does not at all suggest to me you and those accounts are related. I will drop OSTheRobot a note asking them to take it to SPI or stop making the accusation. Zad68 16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
70.35.187.240 is my IP address. And he claims now that I make automatic editing??? If you actually look at my edits, I haven't ever made an automatic edit, nor do I know how. I'm not sure, but I have a feeling it is ether a meat puppet or a sock puppet - ether way is likely, but I have a feeling it is an recruited editor... and I don't mean to accuse anyone, it just seems that way. I do think that it is a very strong possibility it is a sock puppet - there first edit was a user talk page edit - I suggest someone look into this. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 17:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Dark Mistress at this point there is nothing more you need to do. They've been warned twice now to put up or shut up provide diffs at SPI or stop making the accusations. If the accusations continue, you should open up an ANI discussion about them. Otherwise, why not move on to some article editing. Zad68 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)