My warning is at permalink. That was in April 2023 after seeing User talk:Drmies/Archive 144#Moro Rebellion. My warning included "where your opponent has been active". That wording was referring to a particular editor (Beyond My Ken) where I had investigated the background and concluded that there was no good reason for NmWTfs85lXusaybq to be following BMK to other articles. That is, I checked that BMK was not systematically introducing problems that needed NmWTfs85lXusaybq's attention so WP:HOUNDING applied.

The report above needs a new investigation to decide whether there was some underlying problem with the edits that made it desirable for NmWTfs85lXusaybq to follow your editing. That is not easy so I'll start by asking if there has been a discussion somewhere. If so, do you know where the first discussion was?

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Feel free to respond here but please do not give detailed explanations for the diffs above (although I might ask about some cases later). Instead, I would like to know what underlying problem you believe justified following Yaujj13's edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I warned on User talk:Yaujj13 before, Yaujj13 has conducted systematically POV editing (see Special:Diff/1153777435 for example), which is also clarified at Special:PermanentLink/1149954015 and Talk:Jambi Sultanate. The problems of his material are also stated by Onel5969 as the reason to draftify their articles. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow me to give further evidence on my harassment by user NmWTfs85lXusaybq.

Most of my edits are different in nature with some either adding large content (one of which is creating an article) or adding minor fixes but the user in question follow all my edits and specifically target revert my edits.

Here is some elaborate explanation:

He didn't fix anything on Chiragh Kush and only just added &nbsp all over the article and removed it. I am unsure his motives but it is not clearly to fix any problems
The Jambi Sultanate edit I work was never off topic and I was forced to create another article which is unnecessary.
This is just a hypothesis but some of his edits are pro Japanese as he edit one of the article like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_China_(Second_Sino-Japanese_War)&diff=prev&oldid=1148783390. And the Japanese war crimes I added like Muslim persecution or Japanese migration to Indonesia is downplayed or minimize.
And on the Alawite article, he only removed my edits only but didn't remove other info that has no citation. If he is so concern about citation, why did he remove my edit which always added citation. This goes the same for the Free China and China Marines articles. The only explanation is that he just follow my edits and harass me.

While this is unrelated, there are info about him that are undermining Wikipedia and hypocritical. He has an account in the Chinese Wikipedia called EqJjgOa8rVvsRmZL which most of his edits are his POV on the protest movements against China government like Hong Kong protest and any political dispute between China and other countries. Yaujj13 (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Spaces are accidentally replaced by &nbsp by gadgets I enabled for better editing when I tried to fix mistakes on Chiragh Kush. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was initially attracted to Yaujj13's edits by multiple CS1 errors introduced by them. After that, I found serious POV in material added by Yaujj13. For example, Free China (Second Sino-Japanese War) had reached a stable version for a long time until Yaujj13 added undue material to introduce the winning of Chinese army in the last year of WW2. That's a clear Chinese POV. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Free China had no inline citation when I edited it. The user in question didn't delete the uncited paragraph and no issue with the pro Japanese POV until i started editing on the article.

Also he have been harassing another user that I have no relation, Beyond My Ken when NmWTfs85lXusaybq follow me to Moro Rebellion article. This shows that he wanted to minimize the war crimes in Moro rebellion and WW2 and his edits on Chinese Wikipedia are anti-China as he edit in favour of western countries.

Evidence for Beyond My Ken: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moro_Rebellion&action=history

The CS1 errors is not what attracted the user as the first edit against me was the reverting Japanese war crimes instead of the errors. This can be seen in this history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_migration_to_Indonesia&diff=prev&oldid=1148782064
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&diff=prev&oldid=1148782665
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_China_(Second_Sino-Japanese_War)&diff=prev&oldid=1148783390 (He also gave a bogus constructive reason to justify his revert).

Yaujj13 (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was attracted to his edits on Peranakans by multiple CS1 errors at first and tried to solve them here before I found his systematically POV editing and the contravention of his claim on user page: I will not edit any Wikipedia pages unless there are minor error. You can check our Interaction Timeline here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring on Stockton Rush[edit]

Could you please have a look at this AN3 thread? The disruption is ongoing and it hasn't received attention from an uninvolved admin despite being open for over three hours. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, it's been taken care of. Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you know, I protected the article (and was going to give a stiff warning) while another admin blocked, so all done. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ilovetyphoons160713[edit]

It's been 9 days since the SPI was last edited and SPI is pretty badly backlogged. Given that Dreamy Jazz and I found evidence supporting that this is a case of socking, I think you have the evidence to make a block. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I indeffed Bestchest160713 (talk · contribs) and Ilovetyphoons160713 (talk · contribs) although they have not been very active as such number changing is very destructive. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Arbitration in WP:AE[edit]

Hello i noticed that you took part in my WP:AE report regarding the use of folkloric sources. I just had a question, is it allowed to elaborate some more about the WP:AE in other admin talk pages? because only 500 words are allowed in the report itself and i understand that it could be difficult for most to jump into that topic and read through all talk pages. The mixing of folktales to change an entire ethnicity of a historical figure was done by the user i reported after i provided evidence of the historical figure existing in history as you can see here:

Here i direct him to the source where this historical figure is not only a folklore figure, the source is Aitberov who brings up two historical documents from 1649 and 1651

Here after he looks through the source the user acknowledges that this historical figure is not only folkloric

Here he includes "Ingush people" to the categories which directly contradicts historical documents and research which i provided to him earlier and which he acknowledged

Here despite every evidence shown to him he insists that the ethnicity of this historical Chechen figure should be "Ingush" solely because "He's prominent in Ingush folklore"

Does this not directly go against Wikipedia's policy? i demonstrated in the WP:AE that he has a history of doing it as well which you noticed. Could you please check the diffs whenever you have time. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This relates to my comment at WP:AE permalink where I expressed support for your enforcement request. The problem is that topics like this are completely opaque as far as average administrators are concerned—it is very hard to understand evidence and conclude that someone needs a sanction. I don't want to consider anything from the past, other than the material I have already looked at. However, if wanted, post here again with a brief explanation regarding any new issue that arises and I will look at it. In answer to your question about providing more than 500 words at WP:AE, I'm afraid people need to live with that. Not every problem needs to be addressed in an initial report. All that is needed is a clear statement of one or two issues with a brief explanation of what the links show. You could add that more is available if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, i recognize that niche topics like this could be hard to understand for the average administrator, i just think the WP:AE was closed down too early personally. While both Seraphimblade and Rosguill understood the issue and even gave a warning to the editor i figured some sort of topic ban should've been enforced. Especially since this is the 3rd time this user uses outdated folklore for Wikipedia articles, given his history i doubt this is the last time and i can't keep an eye out on every article in this topic. Oh well, thank you anyway for answering. Goddard2000 (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your work and if you notice something new, please let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Technical Barnstar
	I only recently discovered ((IP range calculator)) and it's quickly become something I use all the time. It's so helpful to be able to see different combinations of ranges. Thank you, eight-and-a-half years later! DanCherek (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indy 5 budget dispute[edit]

Me and another editor have recently been arguing over the budget for Indiana Jones 5. Sources place the budget between $250 million and $400 million. It’s not unusual for such a big film to have a large budget discrepancy. This editor however has taken it into his own hands to continuously revert the budget to $300 million, as one source states. Instead of keeping the page as it was before the dispute and waiting for a consensus at the talk page, he keeps reverting the budget back to what he feels is the correct amount. I simply think we should wait until a consensus at the talk page and keep the budget the way it was before the dispute until a decision is reached. I would appreciate you stepping in to help clean up the situation, whether your help benefits me or the other user. Thanks Zvig47 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnuniq Please review the talkpage and editing history of the editor @Zvig47 complaining here. You will find he has a long history of edit-warring and has ignored warnings over the years to cease and desist in his LTA. Forcing some of us to revert his LTA on a recent film page because he refuses to respect etiquette per WP:synthesis, WP:Undue and WP:OR.

The plurality of sources and the prevailing consensus in the press, is as follows: https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a44488606/indiana-jones-5-box-office-explained/

(Excerpt)“That insane bloated 300 mil price tag for Indy 5 doesn’t even include marketing costs, which is likely around $150+ million at least (i.e.bombing for the same reason as “The Flash” which has earned back more than its $220 mil production budget yet is still a HUGE flop when taking in account its roughly $150+ marketing budget which isn’t included in that initial $220 number).”(End quote)

If the other editor doesn’t think that’s cogent-enough or specific enough, then per WP:BURDEN, he needs to back up his POV with one of more reliable recent sources that properly reflect the consensus in the press. MOS:FILM, says "do not synthesize…Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." and per MOS:FILMLEAD “Any summary of the film's reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more recent reliable sources” (i.e.in the form of a press consensus).

Sorry to dump all of this on your page. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just had a look at the most recent few edits at Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. They replaced the infobox budget of $300 with $295–400 million. That, along with what is written on article talk looks satisfactory although I am not familiar with standard procedure in this area. The next few hours will show if there is still a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elissa Slotkin[edit]

Greetings,

It looks like you had semi-protected Elissa Slotkin the other day in response to the large volume of controversial edits by IPs about her political positions. Well, it would appear that those IPs have set up accounts and have been aggressively attempting to push through those very same edits, despite opposition and reverts by a host of editors. I was wondering if you'd be open to increasing the protection level again. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cpotisch: Semi protection would be easy but the new users are auto confirmed so semi won't help. Please spell out the issue. I know nothing about it and all I can see is that someone wants to mention certain points. Is there a BLP issue? Why? If there were a reason I would be glad to protect at the next level (WP:ECP) but that would require something blatantly bad. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey thanks for replying. The issue at play here is essentially that these two new users, Thespeedoflightneverchanges and Methanerocketancestor (both of whom were originally editing as IPs before the page was protected) are trying to force in their own original research to call into question Slotkin's stance on abortion, against the preponderance of RS. They want to make the strong implication that she misrepresented her district's stance on abortion rights (and therefore, by extension, her own), by stating in the “abortion” section that A) she said her district is “pro-life”, and B) the district voted on the pro-choice side of the recent state ballot referendum (see discussion here). Point A references a pair of ultra-short quotes plucked from a 5-minute and a 40-minute interview, respectively. Neither have ever been mentioned by any RS, and neither editor refuses to provide any evidence of notability. Furthermore, point B about the referendum is just completely unfounded; they can’t find any source whatsoever that states that the district voted that way, and even it did, it wouldn’t matter, because this is an article about Slotkin, and not MI-7. They’ve waffled a bit on inclusion of the latter point, but either way, it’s a no go. If the point about the referendum is included, we are clearing violating BLP with a totally-OR point about her political positions; and if it’s not included, there’s simply no point being made anyway. Either way, it’s pointless.

However, both users are plowing ahead anyway and refusing to leave the article as it was – despite the requests of several editors – and hash things out on the talk page. Furthermore, Thespeedoflightneverchanges clearly has some difficulty writing and understanding English, as they have repeatedly introduced poor grammar and formatting into the article, and have repeatedly misunderstood and failed to address the objections of the other editors on the talk page or in edit summaries. They also don’t understand Wikipedia policy, having just reverted my edits with the justification that I violated 3RR, which is blatantly untrue (I made exactly 3 reverts but no more), and, for example, just argued that, because Bill Maher’s show and CBS News both have Wikipedia pages, the quotes somehow must be be excluded. I normally would just pursue a block for them given the number of warnings they've received, but the issue seems isolated to this article so that doesn’t seem worth it. ECP would do the job. Let me know your thoughts; I recommend checking out the talk page and revision history of the article plus, plus the talk pages of both users. Thanks again. Cpotisch (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help! Cpotisch (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re.: Coitus,re:video...[edit]

...Reason l asked about that, is that can something like that be used without it being pornographic. I've seen videos on other articles that could be considered controversial - to put it politely. I see your reasoning on this matter. Now that business is out of the way, where is the WP:sandbox at, so I can play on it? Thanks. 😺😺😺😺😘🥰 Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found it. My emojies want to play. 😺❤️🍀🍕 Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block of 2001:44c8:4000::/37[edit]

Shouldn't this one have been anon-only? Plenty of non-blocked registered users from there. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I adjusted the block to be anon-only. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basket world cup[edit]

I didn't want to do that, it was a mistake, you can take off protection. I won't change anything 95.232.207.193 (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we're talking about FIBA Basketball World Cup. The protection expires on 6 August 2023 so I don't think anything needs to be done at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning: Edit Warring, Quashing Debate at Talk: Hunter Biden[edit]

Please stop blocking discussion of an obvious unresolved issue at Talk:Hunter Biden. There should be evenly used and unbiased editorial standards and a discussion clearly reveals there isn’t. You just stopped debate by closing a discussion and threatening anyone who attempts to further discuss with a block. 12.16.115.131 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This relates to my close of the section at Talk:Hunter Biden#Names of children (II). I know Wikipedia is a confusing place and I'm happy to explain the issue if you want to understand it. Alternatively, you can get independent opinions at WP:Teahouse. The question of whether young children with no Wikipedia article should be named in an article about their parent has been debated many times before issues regarding Hunter Biden arose. It is standard procedure that such gratuitous naming should not occur, although exceptions may exist for particular cases. What I was trying to say in my close is that repeatedly raising the question (particularly with stuff like "highly biased editor or group of editors") is not permitted here. Think about it—people will argue forever if given the chance and that would be very disruptive for the community trying to maintain the encyclopedia. As mentioned, anyone is free to examine WP:DR and start an WP:RFC but merely arguing is a WP:NOTFORUM violation. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

::Thanks for the cordial reply. But here’s my issue: Why is it that if you go onto the webpages of politicians who aren’t so favorable with the left, that we do the exact opposite and we do name their minor children? It would seem to me that if it was truly unbiased and people just cared about protecting innocent children, that if made aware of such a thing, the people who were so involved in debating it on the Hunter Biden page would hastily go over there and remove the content, but they don’t. And I’m pretty sure that if I myself went over there and remove the content, that someone (perhaps even someone who watched my edit at the Hunter Biden page), would revert it. So it really seems like there’s bias here and perhaps certain things are being redacted or allowed to stay for political reasons.

It would seem that there should be a way to allow debates like this to continue. Because circumstances change, things become more evident over time, and things become more appropriate over time. And if we just shut down debate then things can never be revisited.

There was a time where it was a heresy for doctors to suggest that washing hands before performing a medical procedure reduces the risk of infection in the patient. It’s a good thing that we weren’t disallowing those people from saying what they thought because otherwise we would’ve never had the debate and come to the knowledge of the truth. So when we are supposedly a encyclopedia, wouldn’t we encourage debate on talk pages? 12.16.115.131 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please give the exact name of an article where "we do name their minor children" and give the exact name to search for to see what you are saying. Is there more than one example? Bear in mind that Wikipedia is a big place and there are always articles where a couple of enthusiasts have added inappropriate details. The discussion has not been shut down. Anyone is free to start an RfC (see the links provided here and at the article talk). I don't know when the last RfC occurred. If there was one and it was recent, a new RfC would probably be shut down because arguments cannot be allowed to go on forever. An RfC has to follow standard procedures whereby a short proposal is made using neutral language. After that, each participant can give arguments for or against the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John, I've struck through the edits of a sockpuppet of Bagofscrews, hope you don't mind. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Doug. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Gone4life[edit]

~~Please revoke User:Gone4life's talk page access. Regards,~~ Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been done. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Bishonen and I were trying to do that at about the same time. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But Bishonen was faster! \o/ Never happened before! Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks for the backup but I'm definitely in the lead at the block log! Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Training School of Music[edit]

Hi, John. We need to change the name of the article to National Training School for Music (consensus on Talk page), but there is a redirect blocking the way. Can you help us move it, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the wise words on the Leo Frank talk page[edit]

While I like to think of myself as even-keeled, that subject is one that sort of immediately raises my hackles. A rational voice from outside is always a good thing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for working at the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Bradv

Oversighter changes

Bradv

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Module:Numberof[edit]

Hi Johnuniq, hope all is well. Recall this conversation about 2 years ago: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:NUMBEROF .. after that I setup a watch to notify whenever the module changed. It looks like the same user has returned and made optimizations again. What do you think? -- GreenC 21:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A quick look suggests the edits are more pointless twaddle. Question: Do we care about meta:Module:NUMBEROF? I know it's irritating but leaving meta for fiddlers to fiddle is an option IMHO. If you want, I'll examine the changes more carefully and adjust (probably revert) as seems necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I care about Meta only because it's a central/global place where people copy and install it to other wikis. Once this version is copied to other wikis, it makes upgrading with new features in the future difficult since it's a fork. I realize it's herding cats, but in this case enwiki and meta are the two main places where people copy from, and there is only 1 user who keeps changing meta, so it might be possible to keep it consistent. -- GreenC 04:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll examine it and decide what to do in the next couple of days. I'm slow because my energy is taken up elsewhere at the moment. Remind me if I haven't done anything in a week. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a silly amount of time to examine the changes and concluded that they were as I suspected, namely pointless rearrangements. I have restored the original and put a note at meta:Module talk:NUMBEROF. Please let me know if anything further is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, John! I decided to go through all 82+ instances and make sure everything is consistent. Turns out I forgot to push the updates after you created the meta sub-module and code for aliases, so I am doing that now, plus all the documentation. It's remarkably laborious/time consuming copying so many files by hand. For the most part though still good after 3 years. -- GreenC 03:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ouch. Someone recently announced that they had a script to update templates/modules on projects from a master copy. I think the master would be at meta and you would push a button and it would be copied to a pre-defined list of locations. Sorry, I can't find it. I did not pay attention because I think such a scheme would be impractical for most applications since there is not usually a good way to know if local customizations have been required (and checking would require painful investigation). Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could see a script that automates where possible and has guardrails that logs when it can't update safely. It's definitely messy. The documentation pages often contain a few words in the local language; some sites use ((lua)) others do not, same with ((tlx)). The script would end up being custom for this program looking for known trouble points. If you ever come across that script let me know I'll take a look maybe it could help some. This is a common problem for every template and module, version control for 100s of projects. Wouldn't it be nice to have cross-wiki transclusions (maybe it exists?). -- GreenC 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found it in the Wikitech mailing list which points to mw:Synchronizer. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's cool. It helped me update a few things quickly. Try it with Q93437308 (the main module) you can see the forks. It shows a diff before saving so pressing a button is safe. It's dependent on the file being in Wikidata and that is not the case for Module:NUMBEROF/meta and the doc files and I have no idea how to create Wikidata entries. It's made for Modules but I tried it with Template:NUMBEROF and it worked. -- GreenC 15:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It turns out certain sub-page names are reserved: /doc, /XML, /meta, /sandbox, /testcases and /TemplateData. These reserved names are disallowed on WikiData from having items created since they are not considered notable pages. Without an item, the Syncronicity program won't work [for that page]. We accidentally created Module:NUMBEROF/meta not realizing it is a reserved name on Wikidata - if it was /feta it would be OK. I'm pleading with an admin on Wikidata to create the item anyway since this is not a normal /meta sub-page but a Lua module part of the template, the sort of thing we normally have items for. But so far no luck. That leaves renaming in the lua modules. I am not ready to update everything, since all it gains is the ability to run Syncronicity on /meta and that page is stable cross wiki. Maybe next time we need to do a major change cross wiki this can be included, if I remember. I'm copying this to the template talk page. -- GreenC 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fitting In (2023 film)[edit]

Someone just moved a film title to Fitting In (2023 film), but it should be just "Fitting In", right? A redirect is in the way. Would you kindly fix the conflict? The previous title was Bloody Hell (2023 film). If you search for just "Fitting In", it brings you to another redirect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, User:Sbirdelevation keeps edit warring (using both the user name and an IP), making it impossible for me to fix the text per the MOS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did the move and am waiting for the bot to fix the double redirects. It seems a bit slower than normal. I'll watch for a while to see if a warning is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. He is a paid editor working for the film company, and I think his "success" by Edit warring regarding the article title will embolden him to do similar regarding other films related to his job. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, a diff showing the COI is 28 August 2023. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit to "Metric prefix"[edit]

The mass of an electron is 9.109 383 7015×10⁻³¹ kg. Converting to grams gives 9.109 383 7015×10⁻²⁸ g. Rounding to the nearest power of ten gives 1×10⁻²⁷ g which is 1 rg. Just like The Guardian says. That problem fixed along with an editor who just doesn't get the idea of round numbers. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This concerns recent edits at Metric prefix. Comments for something like this should be at Talk:Metric prefix where others can see it, now and in the future. It's not always possible to take a few minutes to review changes like this particularly when made with no edit summary. I don't have a rounding problem; I must have got confused by the g vs. kg differences in the article text compared with the footnote. Thanks for fixing it. You might consider adding your second sentence above to the footnote. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page Protection of "Denis Lian"[edit]

I am asking for your assistance to resolve the situation here before it has a chance to escalate. Thanks in advance. MSportWiki (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MSportWiki: I see that the protection request was declined in accord with standard procedure. I will watch Denis Lian for a while. Let me know if I miss something. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. MSportWiki (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we need this?[edit]

This IP's edit summaries have to be seen to be believed: [1]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An IP with attitude is generally accepted provided their edits are not crazy and are as infrequent as in this case. I agree the edit summaries are very undesirable but removing ((cn)) is not vandalism (per definition at WP:VAND). I would do something if they returned. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to drop any wisdom that you may have on them. I never know what to do about smart, arrogant, rude, uncollaborative people. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Princess Theatre (New York City)[edit]

What is the right thing to do here? As you can see, there have been at least 2 proposals here today (both opposed) to either delete the page or make it a disambiguation page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure about that. It appears the plan was to use Princess Theatre (disambiguation) as a disambig page. However, that is an old redirect to the disambig page Princess Theatre which I think is correct although I am not familiar with disambig details. At any rate, the next stage in the plan was to list all "Princess Theatre" articles on that disambig page, including those in New York. That would make Princess Theatre (New York City) redundant. Having all articles with those words in the title on one page looks sensible. The hatnote at Princess Theatre (New York City, 1913–1955) (which currently points to Princess Theatre (disambiguation)) also looks appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gah! So sorry for misplacing my message *again*!!. I only do this to you, so your page is special. Thanks for the response. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes

Hey man im josh

CheckUser changes

DatGuy

Oversighter changes

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Range of IPs[edit]

Hello! Thank you for blocking the IPs I reported. Just out of curiosity, how do you see what range of IPs does a certain IP belong to? Is there any article I could read to get informed on how the system works? In this particular case there were two IPs: 2600:4040:9306:9f00:e115:5e1e:435:8eff and 2600:4040:9306:9F00:145C:DF43:8714:9967. How did you come up with 2600:4040:9306:9F00:0:0:0:0/64? It would definitely help me to report vandalism more precisely. Thank you in advance Aspilemetala (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aspilemetala: You could use ((blockcalc)) but with some experience of IPv6 it is easy to recognize that /64 is what is commonly available to a single user (/64 is when the first four hex numbers between the colons are the same for all IPs; 4×16 = 64). Appending /64 to the contributions of a single IP shows what other edits have been made by others in that block and if they are similar it is a reasonable conclusion that it is the same person. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ties in site rankings[edit]

Hi, you might be interested in this discussion. I'm not sure how to proceed next or replicate the problem. If it's not an easy fix, can change the data back to the way it was before. -- GreenC 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GreenC: I commented at meta:User talk:Pppery#Ties in site rankings. The best way to handle it would be for NUMBEROF to have a new function to generate the whole table and for NUMBEROF to do something clever to handle multiple projects with the same rank. A problem with that is that people would want to fiddle with exactly what the table displays and that would require adjusting the module. Some projects might want not want the module to do what it does elsewhere. Bit of a mess. A workaround would be for you to restore the bot so rankings are unique, although that could be misleading. I don't know how it could be done, but possibly if project A has rank 11 and project B has rank 12, then later project B has the same number of articles as A, B could still be ranked as 12. That is, what ever would get an equal rank is ranked in the order it was last. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the past 3 or 4 years no one has brought this up, until the one user. Apparently they didn't like to see some sites misranked particularly with low count columns like number of admins which can have more than 2 ties for days or weeks. And they are right in a way.

Notably this user was consuming the JSON as a reader not understanding it was meant for use by templates. But this data was meant for templates, not human reading. When it's displayed in tables via the for nowiki loop, the ties become invisible since the precise ranking number is not shown. It doesn't matter (I think?) if Finland comes before Morocco or other way around. Even if we did it "correctly" with Finland and Morocco having the same rank, they still have to follow one another in table, it would look the same, or reversed, but who cares since they have the same rank.

I think an easy solution for now is restore the strictly ordered version, and if someone still has a problem with it, create a parallel JSON page under a new name with ties shown differently. They can use whichever table they prefer. One for humans, one for machines. I could also look into the bot ranking tied sites alphabetically in both versions, it may be difficult will see. Thanks. -- GreenC 02:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds good, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New .tab files on Commons. -- GreenC 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review for African eelephant[edit]

Matr1x-101 has asked for a deletion review of African eelephant. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 17:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highbeam archive url swap[edit]

I've just now swapped a FREELIBRARY url for a HighBeam archive-url in this article. The Free Library provides complete rendition of the particular article and the HighBeam was partial. (Because the HighBeam-archive url is not used, the "subscription" portion of the citation does not apply.) I trust this bit of fiddling is acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Srich32977: As far as I can see, that's an improvement to the article so good. If someone objects to that kind of edit for some reason (copyright?) I hope a discussion will occur somewhere that others can see it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genie[edit]

Can you revdel that? I handed in the bit for a while or I would have myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I just did that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please explain what this means?[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Motion: Removal of Unused Contentious Topics, Shakespeare authorship question (October 2023). Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tom. I don't much see the point of it either but there is a history of cleaning up this kind of thing. The theory (more of a political philosophy or strategy) is that Wikipedia should be open because freedom is good by definition. As the years pass, the number of restricted topics increases until large sections of Wikipedia are under a bureaucratic cloud which can be confusing for editors and admins. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee believes, it is better to periodically review the contentious topics (which is the new name for discretionary sanctions) and remove those for topics where there is no evidence of problems in the last couple of years. The good news is that the community has got more restrictive regarding fringe theories in general and there would be very little chance of significant disruption if the usual suspects were to return. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions permalink shows the background discussion where eight contentious topics, including SAQ, were removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Should this account be indeffed? It looks like all the edits are vandalism. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Six months is all I can manage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infinity Knight's TBan[edit]

Hi Johnuniq, you recently closed Infinity Knight's appeal.

I've read through the ArbCom remedies, and frankly, the ban is way out of line. There is just no authority for it. Sysops can only invoke the sanctions if certain conditions are met. They were obviously not met here.

There are other issues (some of which I've already raised). In your response to the appeal, you linked to a thread in which you accused IN of sealioning. I don't think it was appropriate for you to then be the one to make the close.

I've got no connection with this bloke, but I really have an issue with how this has been handled. I've come across the user multiple times on Israel-Palestine articles, and it strikes me that he is not dissimulating or stonewalling when he appeals to policy. He is genuinely trying, and I hate to see him cut off at the knees.

I'm appealing to your better angels to self-revert the close, even if you cannot overturn the ban. Riposte97 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You raise an interesting point, namely that almost no one could be proven to have violated the conditions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Available sanctions. After all, everyone tries to improve articles and, for example, good-faith editors do not have a purpose of being disruptive or violating BLP. Only careless trolls could be sanctioned under those conditions. However, the third item at the top of that page provides more scope for sanctions, namely "Contentious topic – administrators may impose restrictions on editors and pages in the area of conflict in accordance with the contentious topics procedure." In this case, the sanction is a topic ban based on the reasons presented at User talk:Infinity Knight#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction. Bear in mind that the words written in such an explanation are not intended to be a definitive judgement that covers all points—the sanctioning administrator is assumed to have taken the overall behavior of the editor concerned into account and the explanation only covers stand-out issues. Have you considered the points made by those supporting the sanction at the WP:AE request? I don't see anyone attempting to engage with those points. The normal procedures regarding closure of discussions (mainly that only the uninvolved should do a close) do not apply at WP:AE. I don't know where that is documented or even if it's documented at all, but precedent is that a sanctioning admin makes a comment but does not close an appeal against their sanction, but other admins who might have commented negatively about the case are not similarly excluded. The reason is that monitoring contentious topics is a tedious and thankless task and usually the only admins in a position to have an opinion are those that have some familiarity with the background. In conclusion, I decline the invitation to revert my close. I'm not sure what avenues might then be available as the whole point of Wikipedia:Contentious topics is to avoid never-ending disputes. My generic first-step suggestion for a disagreement like this is to ask at WP:Teahouse where independent editors will give opinions on whether a situation appears to be in accord with standard procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know that the explanations weren't definitive. The procedure makes more sense to me knowing that.

I still have some questions, particularly about how CT/ArbCom restrictions apply in userspace, so I may take up your suggestion to ask the tea house about the technicalities down the track. For now though, I think I may be better served to read back through the disputes pages. I’m clearly not as across things as I thought.

Thank you for taking the time to explain things to me. Riposte97 (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ones' complement[edit]

What is your business reverting my spelling corrections, with comments like "where is that supported?", "is there a discussion somewhere supporting this?", and "that's terrible"? Why did you not do your own research to find out why "one's complement" is actually nonsense, or start a discussion before reverting these corrections, all motivated by an argument from incredulity? Did you even consult Wikipedia itself? It has a redirection from "One's complement" to "Ones' complement", so even if you misspelled it you would find the article with the correct spelling, and it immediately explains that spelling, in the first paragraph. Or, if you don't trust Wikipedia, you can read all about it in Donald E. Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming. Please undo these reversions yourself! — RFST (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When making changes to multiple articles, and when the articles have been the way they are for a long period, it would be highly desirable to point to a reasonably publicized discussion concluding that the changes were desirable. Using an edit summary that merely repeats the edit ("one's complement -> ones' complement") is not helpful—why was the edit made? Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, there already was an article about "ones' complement", which explains the spelling, plus a redirection from "one's complement" to "ones' complement", so looking up either side of the arrow would have led you to that article. What difference does it make how long the other articles have had these spelling errors, and why would correcting errors not be desirable? Please read the article about Donald E. Knuth to convince yourself that he is somebody who knows his stuff. — RFST (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added an authoritative reference with quote about the spelling to the article about ones' complement, and reverted your reversions with added links to the article. Hopefully that is enough for you to leave these corrections alone now. — RFST (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be better to use an edit summary designed for all editors, now and in the future. Something like "spelling per [[Ones' complement]]" which would display as "spelling per Ones' complement" in an edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, but it did not even occur to me that a minor change like this spelling correction could be questioned, let alone challenged or reverted. (And I have to admit that I had long forgotten that this is even possible.) — RFST (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello[edit]

Please see here Infinity Knight (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protect[edit]

Would you kindly semi-protect Back to the Future: The Musical? An IP has long been edit warring to change dates from a correct date to an incorrect date (using several IP addresses). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very weird ... they have been changing an obviously correct archive date for a long time. I protected for a month as it has to be escalated. Let me know if needed in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enough is enough?[edit]

This editor has been making numerous and entirely(?) unconstructive edits for more than two years and has been cautioned repeatedly. Is enough enough? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See User talk:REETO25#Warning. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection of Page[edit]

Hello, I have made an edit request for the page Bajirao I. Fortunately, you considered that, but please check that the page is not protected yet but you have made an edit summary. Hope you fix that. Thank you! Ajayraj890 (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ajayraj890: I sometimes mess up setting protection but it looks like I did correctly set semi-protection for Bajirao I. Bear in mind that an autoconfirmed user only needs 10 edits and 4 days to edit such an article. Is the problem the minor edit warring? If so, please put a polite explanation on article talk and invite the other editor to contribute there. I will watch for a while but remind me if prompting is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Ajayraj890 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review both revisions (current)<->(removed by the user). The user not only reverted your warning but also my message addressing the vandalism they committed. Ajayraj890 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now he is saying that it is his talk page and I have no right there. Check the revision history of his talk page. Ajayraj890 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:BLANKING, almost all messages may be removed from a user talk page by the user. Regarding tactics, please be cautious about using the word "vandalism" because that term has a strict meaning here (WP:VAND). The rule is essentially that adding "poop" is vandalism but making adjustments, even if totally incorrect, are not (per WP:AGF). Unfortunately, patience is required along with repetitive explanations. Use article talk to politely describe any perceived problems with an explanation. Ping me if required. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the warring about edit warring do nothing? Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record and as expected, this was another sock.

IndicHistorian555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arecibo message/User:Ksparkler[edit]

Hello Johnunig, As you have previously protected the [[Areciibo message]] page: could I bring to your attention the activities of ((userlinks|Ksparkler)) recent "contributions" to this page. Not only have they have indulged in edit warring - four reverts in the last 24 hours - they have also been delibrately rude and indulged in shouting (caps) to try and get their points across - see [[Talk:Funnyfarmofdoom]]. This appears to be a user for one item only, but I do feel they have taken no notice of any warning(s) and maybe a short block would stop their poor actions on Wikipedia. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I left a warning and semi-protected the article for another three months. We have to proceed slowly with new contributors. I will watch the article for a while but let me know if further problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for all your help. Regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protection at The Music Man[edit]

There is a lot of edit warring by IPs here. Would you kindly semi-protect the page? Also, should anything else be done to caution this IP in a meaningful way? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See User talk:167.206.228.222#Procedures. Remind me if I miss a repeat. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

gnomes?[edit]

Hi. What did you mean here by "just about any non-gnome edit is a revert"? I came here to ask because I'm not sure if / where I'm allowed to respond there (it seems i already got it wrong once or twice)? The OP seems to be counting A LOT of things as reverts that seem unreasonable? or inexplicable. Irtapil (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A small number of noticeboards have a rule that people must reply in their own section. For you, that means to add a new bullet point at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Irtapil. As you can see from the variety of comments made, the question of what is a revert puzzles many people. I don't think it's worth hunting around for a more official definition because what I wrote is accurate—until you've been around a long time and seen a lot of discussions about what a revert is, take the safe and collaborative road and self-revert whenever someone in good standing asks you to. See WP:GNOME for examples of gnome edits—fixing typos, correcting wikitext syntax, and similar (edits which do not change meaning). An edit which changes the meaning of text in a contentious topic is almost certainly a revert of someone's edit. The question is, when was that someone's edit. If it was recent, changing its meaning or emphasis is certainly a revert. There is some argument about what "recent" means. Regarding your comment above, please get in the habit of clicking + (or new topic or whatever you see) at the top of the page—it's the tab just to the right of edit to edit the whole page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semiprotection at The Sound of Music?[edit]

There are some persistent IP vandals at The Sound of Music (or one using several IP addresses). Would you please take a look? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I semi-protected for three days on the basis that the IPs are slow edit warring without discussion. I think I have mentioned before that edits like these are not vandalism and if the issue were raised at a noticeboard, the fact that they were described that way would be very counterproductive (see WP:VAND for the official definition, essentially that "poop" is vandalism and other stuff is not). Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, I should have said "slow edit warring", etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent page protection on Maharlika Nation[edit]

As per the page protection request for Maharlika Nation, I'm notifying you that the user concern still insist on maintaining their version with the WP:OR content. Repeated reasoning with the user involved has been to no avail and there has been no response ever since I talked about them about the apparent junking of a legal case involving the group which they sourced through a poor image copy of the ruling through Facebook. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hariboneagle927: Thanks for monitoring Maharlika Nation where the edits are obviously inappropriate. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to sanction Datu likha (talk · contribs) at this point because my warning was after their recent edits. Feel free to revert the edits or ask for opinions at a noticeboard such as WP:RSN. I should notice any further activity but if I miss it, please post here again. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about topic ban[edit]

Hi, Johnuniq. You topic banned me from deletion related requests a while ago due the outcome of a discussion at ANU. At the time you decided to include redirecting articles in thst even though it had nothing to do with ANU complaint or original issues. Regardless, I've had zero problems since then. So I was wondering if you'd be willing to make an exception in the topic ban for redircting articles. I tried to appeal the topic ban it unfortunately seems to have failed. I don't think I deserve to be banned from doing things that weren't an issue to begin with though. Especially considering I've done nothing wrong since then, related to the area I'm topic banned from or otherwise. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is from April 2022. Links: notification permalink + ANI archive. You should have mentioned here that you have started an appeal at WP:AN.

I have no recollection of the events from April 2022 but it appears that it would be possible to question whether my close of the discussion was more should have occurred. However, that was 18 months ago and I am unable to vary a close that (I think) has not been formally challenged in that time. I recommend restricting comments to one place, namely WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually did mention the appeal when I said "I tried to appeal the topic ban it unfortunately seems to have failed." Regardless, there's clearly a consensus in the discussion not to lift the topic ban. So I didn't think it would be an issue to ask if you'd make an expectation in the ban for redirecting articles since that wasn't an issue to begin with or part of the original ANU complaint. I'm fine with revisiting this when the the AN discussion is more formally settled though. Even if it was technically a unliteral decision on your end to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but what I wrote above stands: I am not able to change a close that has stood without a formal challenge in 18 months. The links in my comment above show that I spent a reasonable amount of time discussing the issue with you with explanations of my opinion regarding how topic bans generally work whether or not participants explicitly endorsed the details in their comments. I recommend that you drop the matter entirely and see how the current appeal works. If it is as unfavorable as you suggest above, that would be an indication that you should think deeply about what the problem is and how you might overcome it in the future. That would require some introspection. If the appeal is only mildly unfavorable, you might post a new section asking for a clarification concerning whether certain actions [insert what you want to do here] would be permitted. I could possibly offer an opinion on that but it would be better to have WP:AN consider the matter particularly if you believe my close had a unilateral decision (because, presumably, I would still think my opinion was fine). By the way, I think you mean ANI (not ANU) and "exception" (not expectation). Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article move to sentence case[edit]

I think this article should be the actual article name (small t in "the"), and the other one should be the redirect (per MOS:AT and WP:LOWERCASE): Theatre Under the Stars (Houston). If you agree, would you please switch them? (should "under" also begin with a small "u"?) -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gah! You are the only person I do that to, as far as I know. I apologize (again) and will work hard to avoid it in the future! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This might need a specialist who is really familiar with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).I went looking for precedent: this link shows all articles (not redirects) with titles beginning "Theatre". Unfortunately I don't see anything helpful for this case. It does point out this complication:

Theatre Under the Stars is a dab which lists both the following.
Theatre Under The Stars (Houston) is the article in question.
Theatre Under The Stars (Vancouver) is a similar article.

These redirects are relevant:

I don't know which of the above two redirects is the "correct" case. The official website uses all-caps and so is not helpful. The only thing I'm confident about is that the three non-redirects should have the same case. Also, while the number of watchers on these articles is small, and since we are unsure, I think there should be a proposed-move talk page notice on the Houston and Vancouver pages (the latter could just link to the former). The place where someone used to doing tricky moves that preserve history would be WP:RM. If needed, I can do something but I would want to feel more confident about what the result should be. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These two organizations should clearly move to "Theatre Under the Stars" spellings per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:THECAPS, and MOS:TM, unless for a particular case the independent reliable sources overwhelmingly use "The" in mid-phrase, which is very unlikely. (It is vaguely possible though, so "the three non-redirects should have the same case" isn't necessarily guaranteed, but I would bet money on it.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 User:SMcCandlish, would you mind making the move request at WP:RM? I went over there, but this is the sort of technical stuff I am awful at. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done the moves, thanks to SMcCandlish for the title confirmation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess I can close this page then! I had kept it open as a reminder to do go do the RMs later. (For my part, I'm a bit "shy" these days about manually moving a page if there is any possibility of someone controverting it, since I got ANIed many years ago for making a bunch of moves without WP:RM process over some objections – unsupportable ones, but the ANI consensus was that the objections existing was sufficient to invoke the long RM process. I was actually right about those articles and they ended up where I said they should be after RM bureaucracy was done. But it left a mark.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was a bit squeamish about doing the moves when I was less confident before your comment but I used "swap titles per request at my talk" as the summary and there is at least some agreement about the titles. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For more than once clearly stating what I failed to express at WT:ACCESS#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only. I fully concur with your latest reply there and I no longer really see a use for my input if you can express what I believe should be done going forward more succinctly than I. It appears nothing I say will convince SMcCandlish that I intended my thread to be: "Nkon21 is doing this. What do people think?" and if a number of users had said "it's fine to do this", I would have agreed and let Nkon21 proceed without raising any further issues. Instead I've apparently been a "strain on editorial good will" and some such. It was causing me distress late last month to be accused of all of these things that I genuinely did not intend to do, now SMcCandlish is repeating it when I thought it was resolved. I give up on that thread. I'm not sure if you intend to continue participating in that thread, but if there's anything further raised about how to continue from Nkon21 or anybody else, I think you'd have the best way of wording it. Also, apologies in advance for not pressing "+" to start a new section. Ss112 16:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In cases like this, I console myself by remembering that, despite the fine title of editor, people here are randoms from the internet so it makes sense that there should be plenty of strange opinions. I realized a while ago that I can't fix what's wrong on the internet and relaxing is easier and more profitable. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The table captions thing[edit]

If you actually want some kind of explicit rule about this, then you could RfC it, and it's probably the only way to get to a restriction against hiding redundant captions, if that were the goal. I think the things against that idea are multiple: 1) Hiding redundant captions is a net benefit at no cost, and it does not qualify as cosmetic under WP's definition; 2) there is no policy or guideline it is against; 3) banning it would be against WP:EDITING policy since we are free to make constructive edits as long as they are not against some other guideline, policy, or community principle (including harming accessibility or causing some other serious problem); 4) the entire rationale behind the idea simply seems to be that a sentence at MOS:ACCESS#Table captions about captions isn't as clear as it could be, yet the fix for that is obvious: adjust the sentence; and 5) the community is reluctant to impose new rules per WP:CREEP and especially new MoS ones per WP:MOSBLOAT. That's a lot to overcome.

Clearly, the best approach (which would likely not require an RfC, being WP:COMMONSENSE copyediting) is simply clarifying the MOS:ACCESS sentence to make it clear that table captions have to be present but need not be visible to non-screenreader users if they are simply repeating the table headers. Well, unless you really are wanting to prohibit ((sronly))-ing of redundant captions because you agree with Ss112's [ostensible] position on the matter, in which case you have an editorial community to convince that there's a good rationale for such a global restriction. I'm not presenting this as an argument to have, I'm just observing what the likely responses will be and on what grounds, based on lots and lots of MoS-related RfCs over the years. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done a lot of computer stuff and learned that following good documentation has a lot of benefits. I hate it when docs go all waffly and say I could do this or perhaps that, or maybe something else. A guideline should provide guidance. By all means, put a disclaimer in every paragraph for the intellectually challenged so they understand that it's just a guideline but give guidance! Repeating what I said in the boat anchor MOS discussion, it's crazy for a guideline to say that a caption should always be included while people go around making them invisible. So, yes, if making the captions invisible is fine, the guideline should say that. OTOH I take your point that I think you expressed somewhere that a guideline cannot cover everything. I'll leave it at that for now. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we went the guideline revision route, any suggested wording? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, the issue concerns what "Data tables should always include a caption" means at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Data tables. That guidance was based on an RfC which was about screen readers. Accordingly, the view that captions should be included but can be hidden from sighted readers is understandable. However, I shouldn't have to divine tea leaves to work out that "Data tables should always include a caption" means something other than what is conveyed by those words. I'm not sure what the fix is and since no one other than the combatants seems interested I'm happy to leave it. A quick fix might be to add a footnote with a link to the RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Theatre Under The Stars (Vancouver)[edit]

Hello, Johnuniq,

I think you created a redirect to itself. Do you have any idea where this page should point to or if it needs to be moved to a different page title? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz: Thanks for the alert. I was showing off by doing a round-robin move to swap two pages (per #Article move to sentence case above). I managed to edit the content page for the new target, but forgot to edit the talk page. I believe it is now fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I was looking into some SPI sockpuppet cases and found you protected the frequently created Draft:Tawhid Afridi so it can only be edited by template editors. Why did you choose this option over admin-only or extended-confirmed-only? I'm not sure that regular admins can edit or change the protection if it can only be altered by template editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz: Admin rights include template editor. That can be confirmed by visiting Draft:Tawhid Afridi which, for me, shows "Creating Draft:Tawhid Afridi". Above the edit window it shows "This page has been protected so only administrators and template editors can create it". Also, Wikipedia:User access levels#Template editor includes "This right is automatically assigned to administrators." Re why I chose template editor (TE) protection, I've been back-and-forth on the best way to create-protect an article. My reasoning is that with a page that conceivably might exist given proper content and sources, it would be easier to find someone to create it since any admin or TE editor could do it. My main thought is that it is somehow more egalitarian to use TE rather than admin protection. I thought about extended-confirmed-only but that is not such a high bar and plenty of trouble makers achieve 30 days/500 edits before revealing their motivation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at WP:AN § Draft:Proposed article translations[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AN § Draft:Proposed article translations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Johnuniq. Would you mind taking a look at this? I think the creator of this "draft"is back using various IPs to try and get others involved in this project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for monitoring this. The IPs look like block evasion but I have created enough of a fuss with the indef block so I'll leave it for others to handle. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!

Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beautiful! Thanks, and best wishes in return. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas, and best wishes to you for a wonderful year ahead! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks and let's hope for clear weather free of trolls! Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convolution page revert[edit]

Hi i saw you reverted my edit on the convolution page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Convolution&diff=1190905497&oldid=1190641647 Can you suggest a better first sentence than mine? The one you reverted to is quite imprecise. DMH43 (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DMH43. Defining something like Convolution in a digestible sentence is hard but this is not the place to discuss that. Please add something at Talk:Convolution and I'll try to clarify my thoughts. Using the article talk page allows other people to see the reasoning now and in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Holidays![edit]

Hike395 is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:Happy holidays)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

— hike395 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and Happy Holidays in return. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian landing ship Novocherkassk‎ protection[edit]

I understand it has been only an hour since the protection I requested for this article was denied however what I suggested would happen is happening and its just causing unnecessary back and forth editing and reverting. Brandon Downes (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're intentionally removing information that is relevant and true, and now running off to block others from editing. Get a grip. Wdaasd (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the place for this discussion especially if you're going to be hostile. However the sources you provided simply aren't good and both articles are created based on the same single telegram statement. Changing an entire articles tense based on this is silly, we have no visual or concrete evidence that the ship is a total loss. Brandon Downes (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wdaasd: You are a new editor and might not know that WP:CIVIL is required. You will be blocked if the attitude is not dialed back. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brandon Downes: Sorry but all I'm able to do is demonstrate the limits of admin power. For anyone watching, I declined the protection of this article a short time ago because it was preemptive. Now there is plenty of activity with poor sources so it's no long preemptive. However, semi-protection would not prevent the current advocate from adding what they have and the edits are certainly not vandalism so protection is not a suitable response. My very weak response in a case like this would be to let it go and raise the matter at a noticeboard (WP:RSN?) or a wikiproject and see what others think. I have been told that kyivindependent.com is often correct (apparently they don't like to publish stuff which is later found to be false) but as you said, they say "reportedly" which is inadequate. I don't think an admin can do much in this situation until the matter has been considered at a noticeboard which would take a considerable time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to mention that there is nothing at Talk:Russian landing ship Novocherkassk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the article is basically in limbo as regardless of what I do to make it correct based on the sources provided a hostile new editor can just revert the changes. Fantastic. Brandon Downes (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty much, but it's not quite as bad as might appear. For one thing, recent edits have clarified that it is "reported" rather than definite. Also, it is quite possible (likely?) that the report will turn out to be correct. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for commenting here again but I'm not sure a 7 day restriction only for admins is the correct course of action for the article. I can understand why you've done it and I can only apologise for my actions but a 7 day restriction only for admins when this is seemingly a current event will most likely cause disruption for regular users of the website. As there are only a small amount of admins available to make edits throught the suggested edit function we will likely see outdated/incorrect information being shown. Once again my apologies. Brandon Downes (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just posted at Talk:Russian landing ship Novocherkassk saying that the protection can easily be removed once any sign of agreement occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Company LTA[edit]

Hi there, apologies for reverting you but that IP (184.22.29.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was actually reverting the other IP 91.184.122.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) as the latter is a rampant LTA on numerous company articles for quite some time now. John Yunshire (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the correction and explanation. I have had to unblock an IP (User talk:184.22.29.241#December 2023). Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]