User talk:JzG/Archive 164

Archive 160

←

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

Archive 166

→

Archive 170

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Happy New Year!

Hello JzG: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Hhkohh (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Not spa. Easy enough to check this

Re [1]: You can use this. That said, Happy {editing|New Year} --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 03:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you stop advocating for your commercial interests, and I won't start advocating for mine. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

As if that justifies improper tagging. I'll be clearer: objective criteria exist (SPATG, first entry) and you blew them off. Thus it looks like an attempt to poison the well. Don't ever do something like that again. (I'm sympathetic if stress IRL is a factor, in which case, please have a beer and something wikibreak-ish.) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Weird how touchy you are about your transparent conflict of interest in this area. It's almsot as if you have a conflict of interest. Which you do. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

COI ≠ SPA. It's easy to be one without the other.

If your view is so transparently obvious, why do most RfC respondents not buy it? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 18:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

As is obvious from the discussion, that is because they are unfamiliar with the quasi-religious nature of SCAM and the difference between being wedded to a specific therapy, whether reality-based or fake, and being a doctor able to use a wide variety of therapies. The people supporting the argument are the ones who are best informed on SCAM, and that is significant. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you think you'd get consensus if these concerns were widely understood? Looking at the "no" (and not-exactly-"yes") !votes & discussion, there are a number of other concerns, a number of which acknowledge yours but assert that other considerations are more important. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 04:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC); clarify 04:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Listen... I may be outta my way but lemme tell you something. If you want to promote your narrow interests for either of those alternative medicines and I do see you're rather POV pushing i.e. First comes acupuncture, pseudoscience. Second comes Ayurveda, pseudoscience. So any scholar may claim to be a expert in his/her/his-her field, they'll never be able to establish and contradict our contrails for those already established views.. Only if you are able to prove by pure documentation and scientific methods and explanations that IT IS a SCIENTIFIC METHOD if not... then I'm afraid my dear child you'll never succeed in completing this aggressive point of view. Go to Uncyclopedia to rant over or RationalWiki, not here. There's nothing more to discuss, we (Guy, Beyond my Ken, Mjolnir Pants, Guy Macon, etc) are right, you're wrong, pointless IMHO to discuss this... Bye. 182.58.173.199 (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Bye, thanks for the convincing evidence.^[sarcasm] I keep waiting for recent mainspace diffs -- I'm really happy to discuss them if there's a problem (and can't even remember when I last edited Ayurveda, it's been years) -- but I'm not swayed by this kind of polemic, or attempts to get me to stop editing (which I don't do that much) that focus on contributor and not content. And remember, people learn. All of us, I hope, are better editors than we used to be. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 05:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Another crystal display of a pure COI.. read this in your fun times 182.58.254.0 (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That sort of thing wouldn't go in the article anyway (the crappy meta-analyis). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 06:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC); clarify 06:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Middle 8: WP:DNFT. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"Fun times" get it, BTW that summarizes it, though 182.58.254.0 (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Turning Point USA

This is related to the discussion we have been participating in at WP:RSN, but it is separate enough that I thought it should be brought to your specific attention. In this edit, you were dealing with the following paragraph:

At Turning Point's annual Student Action Summit in December 2017, one of the featured speakers was Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren. During Lahren's question-and-answer session, several students shouted at Lahren asking about her changing her stance on abortion, which had led to her being fired from TheBlaze. Lahren yelled back at the audience "You need to simmer down! You don't even want to start with me!" Later that day students accused Turning Point USA of trying to prevent students from posing questions to Lahren about abortion, as well as those about Colin Kaepernick. Kirk apologized shortly thereafter.

References

The entire paragraph was based on the Washington Examiner article [2]. However, you deleted only the last sentence ("Kirk apologized shortly thereafter") and the footnote, leaving the rest of the paragraph uncited. I am aware that you don't consider the Examiner a reliable source. However, if the whole paragraph is based on an unreliable source, the better options would be to either (a) find a better source and use that instead, or (b) delete the whole paragraph. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, good spot. I have fixed it.. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Recreation of Kwao Lezzes-Tyt

• Kwao Lezzes-Tyt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)
• Kwamevaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wiki3310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr

Hate to say it, but whenever I see this name appear it is bad news and an indicator the Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr/FFHypeteam ring has returned. Thanks for watching the article, but I have on question; who re-created the article? I assumed it was the editor who you recently filed an SPI directed at, but I was unable find any indication of a deleted article at [3].--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was Wiki3310. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks JzG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, SamHolt6, I was wrong. Wiki3310 re-created Draft:Nikki Samonas, previously created by FFHypeTeam sock Evtwumasi. The Lezzes-Tyt spam was Kwamevaughan, who also looks decidedly suspicious. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OMICS

Can you please clarify the rationale of this edit. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 13:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If a new editor turned up and made edits like these: [4], [5]. They'd receive very short shrift. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

See OMICS Publishing Group and note that OMICS employees are banned from Wikipedia for spamming. See also my user page. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I know quite well that OMICS gives a stiff competition for being the shittiest of predatory publishers and that OMICS has been banned from en-wiki.

I created and wrote the article about BGR-34, entirely of my own and given that I had also written OMICS is near-unanimously held to be a predatory publisher with little to non-existent quality-control and their conferences have been subject to equivalent criticism with a bunch of citations in the very line (that followed your removal); you ought to have expected about my know-how. Incidentally, the research has been already amply criticized a-prior (which has got nothing to do with OMICS).

The OMICS cite did nothing except as a verification for my statement that it was indeed published in OMICS and that I'm not making stuff up.

You need to use common sense rather than following tags and blindly mass-removing mentions of OMICS. ∯WBG^converse 13:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's my view of the problem we have here - and this is absolutely not personal, as I hope is obvious.

In articles on fringe topics, especially, there is a tendency to include content along the line of: "A study by $WHOEVERTHEFUCK found that $BULLSHIT cures cancer.(Ref: Study by $WHOEVERTHEFUCK in $PREDATORYJOURNAL claiming $BULLSHIT cures cancer). $ACTUALSCIENTIST pointed out that this study is bullshit.(Ref: Article by $SCIENTIST on $WEBSITE pointing out it's bullshit)."

You'll have see this hundreds of times, right? We all have.

So, first, the $WHOEVERTHEFUCK source is primary and, if in a predatory / pay-to-play journal (which OMICS is) self-published. We normally restrict use of these sources to about-self by notable autorities and even then use with caution. $WHOEVERTHEFUCK is not notable and not an authority.

Second, the difference between a study published in a journal and an article in the popular science press is that the journal looks more credible. Most people lack the skills necessary to work out why a superficially plausible published article is actually bullshit. It comes across as SCIENCE! vs. evil Monsatan shills who dispute SCIENCE!. So that's a second great reason for not including it.

Third, it's not necessary. The secondary source by $ACTUALSCIENTIST contains all the necessary context and supportes the content in its entirety.

I know that Wikipedia is increasingly losing sight of the WP:RS trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. Arguing for all three every time is a lost cause. But unreliable, primary and affiliated is 0/3 and not a good idea even when we immediately rebut and debunk it.

That's my view, and it's constant across all articles.

Sorry we have to fight about this, you know, I think,that I am a big fan of your work here. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

confused

Hi Guy, I'm having issues with an editor, and am trying to understand the big picture history. Can you briefly summarize the fracas 1-2 years ago at the bio for Mark Z. Jacobson? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Oh, nevermind, you already explained elsewhere. Sorry to bother you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

user rights

Would you do me a favour and remove the eventcoordinator, extendedmover and rollbacker rights from my account? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Vexations:  Done. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paul Haughey; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TJRC (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Mass removals

Hi JzG. Please stop your mass removals that have not been previously discussed. In addition, I've got the impression that you are not really with the field of the risk assessment of chemicals. --Leyo 23:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I am with the field of assessing reliable sources. Alan Wood's personal website isn't one. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't found any incorrect data on pesticides so far on this website. He claims having been a member for several years of the BSI/ISO committee that assigns common names to pesticides. Therefore, he created and maintains the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names. There is no good reason not to believe in this claim. This source has been used by many experienced users over the past couple of years. --Leyo 23:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh sure, he is a clever man and clearly interested in the field, I am sure most of the information is correct, possibly even all of it, but WP:RS requires more than just being correct. Nothing personal. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but I created a thread concerning your behavior. --Leyo 23:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for The dufflebag

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The dufflebag. 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. feminist (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Legal syllogism

Could you finish the job. (AFD closed as Withdrawn (XFDcloser)) Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Omics

Saw your reply, over the archived thread and after some thoughts, concur with you in near-entirety. And, I too have a great regard for your work in these spheres and overall:-) ∯WBG^converse 08:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Compendium of Pesticide Common Names

You are not going to remove any other of the references that are under discussion until a conclusion has been reached. Otherwise you may risk of being subject of an administrative action. --Leyo 23:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• You are not going to tell me what to do. And feel free to check my admin status. JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Guy (Help!) 00:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It is a general principle that during a dispute no party may just proceed trying to create facts. I have blocked quite a few users for this kind of behavior. I am aware that you are an admin, but also admins may face admin actions. --Leyo 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Tell you what, re-read your message and see if you can work out why it makes you look like an arse. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I have always been treating admins and non-admins in the same manner. Some fellow admins do not seem to be used to that. --Leyo 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so you are rude and obnoxious to everyone? I hope that works out well for you. Now go away, there's a good chap. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Using worse like arse, being engaged in edit-warring (will this be the next one?) and telling the other to be rude and obnoxious? Well … --Leyo 00:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Leyo, considering how close you were to being sanctioned for violating the DS in this subject a few months ago, you're not really in any position to continue sniping at other editors as you've been doing here and pretend like it's fine. That path you're going done has typically led to topics bans in this subject, admin or not. Do knock it off. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You are obviously confusing me with yourself. --Leyo 09:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your censorship to talk pages, archives etc. Talk page contributions of other users should only be altered for grounds like linking to websites with dangerous content or such things. In addition, the article name space may be easily monitored individually, e.g. using CirrusSearch. --Leyo 09:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That word "censorship". I see it a lot from POV-pushers. Now look at my user page, see the long list of spammed websites I monitor. Wrapping links in nowiki (which is absolutely not in any way a form of censorship, as it leaves the text entirely intact, a principle that has been discussed before) is a good, low-touch way to keep the link count down and make it easier to monitor for legitimate use of a spammed link. Now fuck off. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for seeking input by others prior to acting. --Leyo 13:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Please take your obnoxious condescension somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Nikki Samonas

Hello JzG, the Samonas article was recently deleted (G5) due to being created by a sockpuppet. I passed it through AfC and several editors (including myself) edited it to improve PROMO tone and formatting. Is there anyway to request to bring the page back, because I do believe the subject meets notability requirements. Thank you! Thsmi002 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Le sigh. This is one of those times when good people end up giving spammers what they want, is it? Guy (Help!) 15:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like that might be the case :( At least in this case, the spammer was editing about a subject that seems likely to meet notability requirements. Hopefully, with the article standing, it won't be edited by people with COI. If there is an ongoing problem, page protection might be needed. How can the article be brought back? Thsmi002 (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, is there a way to request for this article to be brought back? It would be quicker than having to rewrite it from scratch. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)