Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Username and legal threat issues

Hi C.Fred. Would you be willing to take a look at User:AAPS Attorney? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also see User talk:Jjjerry14, probably the same person. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about a deleted page

What were you seeing at Draft:Md Mehedi Hasan Prince that I wasn't? To me it looked like someone was trying to draft an article which is what draftspace is for. I didn't really see how it fitted within the realm of G11. The only two red flags that stood out to me were a previously deleted version of the page and how it looked like they were working off of some guide on how to create an article (which could have some good faith reason behind it). So I was just wondering if you could elaborate on your reasoning so I could understand when approaching similar situations myself? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clovermoss Looking at their username and the title of the draft, it was clear they were trying to write an autobiography. There was no claim of significance, just their website address, so it was pretty clear they were mainly interested in using Wikipedia to promote themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I missed the username. That explains it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP noticeboard concern re: Trivium ex-band member

Hello, could you remove my username from the top of that topic?

Kinda feels weird because it makes it sound like I am an alt of galamity, and that's kinda making me feel uncomfortable.

I feel I made the edits that I did in good faith, supported by what I felt were valid citations. I've undone the edits I made on the various pages (including a couple that I self-reverted) and I won't engage in any edit-war. Joe Capricorn (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Joe Capricorn If you've been added to the report, it's because there's a good-faith concern that you are a party to the situation, especially in light of your low edit count. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see how the concern could be brought, since I am not terribly active on Wikipedia, but I am not a party per se, but galamity did message folks on the Metal-Archives discord and I figured I'd look into it. No intention of causing trouble! Joe Capricorn (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joe Capricorn …but galamity did message folks on the Metal-Archives discord… Quoting from WP:MEATPUPPET: Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets… —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. I guess I interpreted the term "meat puppet" to mean a literal alt, not a separate individual taking a user's side.
I did involve myself on my own volition though, and I did tell galamity that edit warring isn't likely to produce a desirable outcome. Joe Capricorn (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes you think that

Fangraphs is not an RS? And - for that matter -- that all blogs without exception are not RSs? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:RSOPINION and WP:USERG both cover why blogs are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only are newsblogs potential RSs, but sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Are you suggesting that Fangraphs is not an RS? If so, there are loads of entries that should be deleted at the project. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am suggesting that the burden is on you to demonstrate that Fangraphs is a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And why in the world are your restoring a non-opinion. Asserting as your basis WP:RSOPINION? I don't get it?
And you assert that Fangraphs is not an RS. Have you even explored that that is the case? Looked at whether it meets our RS criteria? Notice that it is in the wp template for every single major league baseball player on wikipedia? Are we wasting time here?

It's in 9,655 Wikipedia articles. Is this a joke? --2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've not found anything yet that says it is a reliable source, although it is a valid external link to include in articles, particularly for players. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is in an article for a player! And we only include in that template what the community finds to be RSs.
And this is the writer -- https://www.si.com/mlb/astros/author/leo-morgenstern
A writer for Inside the Astros and Inside the Phillies on Sports Illustrated. His work has also appeared on Pitcher List, Baseball Prospectus, and SB Nation.
And you can read all about Fangraphs at their site and see it meets wp requirements.
And you can read at wp's rules how with a writer like this it's PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE to site him. He's cleary a writer in all manner of RSs on this subject.
This is a waste of time caused by failure to do mere seconds of checking before reverting. That hurts the project. Assume good faith. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One, I don't see it in the template or suggested article. Two, not all external links are reliable sources. (Classic case in point: IMDB.) Three, I could not find the Fangraphs masthead to determine who wrote the article in question and, thus, whether it was a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What don't you see? That template was formed our baseball experts after much discussion on the project's talk page, which you can find on wp. This isn't IMDB - just read its characteristics on its home page. Also, this is used both in the template and in all manner of articles. The article clearly states who wrote the article in question. I indicated it above. Don't you agree that sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? Are you questioning whether Sports Illustrated, for example, is an RS? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sports Illustrated is a separate discussion outside the scope of this discussion, but as a general statement, historically SI is reliable. Again, you have failed to prevent evidence that Fangraphs is reliable and independent. Further, where is said template? If it's at WP:BASEBALL, it's not anywhere obvious. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a nice discussion about an editor being blocked indefinitely for among other things arguing against consensus that Fangraphs is not an RS, and deleting it. JUst search for Fangraphs on the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive10
And SI is indeed within scope. Because ,, and I asked you if you disagree and you did not .. sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need to search the archives to see if there has been a recent discussion on SI in light of the AI incidents. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the community sanctions discussion does not address whether Fangraphs is a reliable source, only whether to include it as an external link. There is a difference. —C.Fred (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since there is no clarity on whether FanGraphs columns/blogs/articles are RS, I have escalated this to RSN, at WP:RSN#FanGraphs as a source, not just an external link. —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally, regarding sources may be considered reliable when work in the relevant field by the source has previously been published by reliable, independent publications: The operative word is "may"; it does not imply reliability in all cases. For instance, work by TMZ is widely published by reliable, independent publications, but there is no consensus to deem TMZ itself as reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm confused by your parsing of "may" in context. Of course we won't say "must" or "should" or "had better." Because use of any ref - if it is acceptable - is a matter of choice by the editor considering using the source. Here, may indicates that it is permitted. As in "is permitted to do the following." As in, "you may now withdraw your retirement funds." We can understand this from context. Anyway, as to RSN, if my ability to convince you is not effective, of course that sounds like a great idea. If you are undertain as to whether SI is a reliable source, you may (this is a case of "not permission," in this particular context) wish to post that there also. One last point. You speak of the use of the blog source - which you deleted - being about opinion, not facts. Have you checked? I am not sure that is correct. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5837:9D9C:6FE8:2843 (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Coal

Hello. I hope this finds you well. There is a User from the Turkish Wiki you deleted due to vandalism back in 2021, Dr. Coal. He is back and accusing me of Sockpuppetry even though I am innocent. He is vandalizing pages I have made and took time to edit. I have no objections to a sockpuppet investigation opened on me, I have had two in the past and I have no problem whatsoever with a third, but the way he is handling it is extremely unprofessional. Kindly advice. Serrwinner (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi C.Fred!
I hope you're doing fine. I wanted to share some insights regarding the message above.
Firstly, as far as I'm concerned, sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry may not have found place here on en.wiki but I think keeping this in mind should be of help in the future. In this regard, IP check is not always useful since it's absolutely -and unfortunately- no big deal to get over, especially when it comes to meatpuppetry. The user already stated here: "A random guy sent me an email (which I have been receiving over the last year or so asking for help) asking me to help out and check out his page." There is no way to be certainly sure of it, but even this single statement makes suspicion of a puppetry "reasonable". So, this is not a thought I make up myself. By the way, it could mean more if I told you that the user created the "almost same article" (impossible to be coincidental) in Turkish on tr.wiki which other puppets also had and was first created on the 5th of February. Even an IP user told here that the person, subject of the article, asked for help to get the article created. Anyways, I wanted to explain this part so you wouldn't get a false impression about my acts.
The article in hand is Yasin Şöhret. You see, it was moved to draft and then came back to main page etc. Even Ldm1954 wrote here: "I think you have done a good job with the improvements, but others may not agree -- many are harsher than I am!" Tags regarding notability and sources build the context of this message. So, as someone who saw the article both in Turkish and in English, and whose native language is Turkish, I found the sources not satisfying since they were either primary or not "about" the subject, such as listing the subject's name or mentioning incidentally. This last correspondence between me and Serrwinner shows that they might not be able to understand Turkish since they were able to challenge their ban on tr.wiki which is written on their talk page on tr.wiki and apparently didn't know (understand) that. If that's the case, I think I have the right to ask, how they can be so sure that the subject is notable and sources prove it? Because they should be sure to remove the tags three times (1, 2, 3) without saying anything about the tags' (in)legitimacy? Far from doing this, they told repeatedly (1, 2: "STOP DELETING THESE you vandal", 3) what I did was vandalism. How could they call it vandalism if they have no idea about the content of the sources they added? They told "there are tons of secondary sources" and this is exactly what "refbomb" is about. Either way, I don't think it was appropriate to remove the tags without saying anything about it, especially regarding what Ldm1954 told them only 3 days ago.
Even though I deleted the article on tr.wiki, I just wanted to tag it here since our guidelines in this regard may somewhat differ, and it would be the best if the community here on en.wiki oversee it.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the headache I caused. I hope to get in touch in the future for nicer reasons.
Best,
Dr. CoalMessage 23:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More