User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 85

Archive 80

←

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

→

Archive 90

3RR: Karamellpudding1999

Thanks for that. I think that a slap on the wrist might turn their head in the right direction. Here's a question, would I have been out of line in making that suggestion when I made the report? I don't do a lot of 3RR reports (probably less than 10 in 5 years), but I would have hated to see them get like a month block for something like this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you'd have been out of line. That said, usually the first block for edit warring is fairly short; I don't think any admin would have blocked for more than two or three days at most, even taking into account the NPA violations. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Will keep that in mind (if there is a next time). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Bangabandhu Cup

Hey Salvio! Can I have some time of yours to discuss something?--Anbans 585 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Always glad to be of help, if I can. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It's about this discussion we had on 2018 Bangabandhu Cup. There was a conflict regarding the issue that what should the Philippines be called, should it be called Philippines or Philippines 'B'. The other person seems to say that since the team is not the full national team, due to absence of many of the senior players (which is correct), we should call the team Philippines 'B'. I on the other hand argued that regardless of which players are playing the team should be called Philippines as according to all the media sources and sports websites, including the Federation's official website states that the caps and debut goals have been scored etc. That's what I made of this excerpt from this article - "The Philippine Men’s National Team secured the top spot in Group B after a tight 1-0 win over host Bangladesh last Friday 5 October 2018 at the Sylhet District Stadium in Sylhet, Bangladesh." here. So what do you think we should do with this article?--Anbans 585 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "B" should not be included. In general, we follow what reliable sources say and if all the RS we found refer to the team as "Philippines" instead of "Philippines (B)", then that's what we should do as well. I understand that they brought their second team and, while I think that this should be included in the article (and, at the moment, it is), to then conclude that, in the light of that, the team should be called "Philippines (B)", in my opinion, would be original research. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The person is currently blocked for a day, what should I do if he starts to do the same thing again in the future?--Anbans 585 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Assuming the other two editors do not start edit warring again, once their blocks are over, you should treat this like a content dispute and follow these steps. Basically, discuss the issue with them; if that fails, try asking others, for instance posting at one of the noticeboards or starting a request for comment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help.--Anbans 585 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

AE

Hi Salvio. I was going to leave my thoughts on that AE, but noted that you just closed it with the conclusion "No violation, although the edits skirted fairly close to the line". I have a few details to add, if I may, and I'll keep it short hopefully – given Orientls' involvement on this talk page since at least July, this report did not make sense. In the report, Orientls clarified they were not seeking a santion, but then used 'topic ban violation' in the same sentence, which doesn't inspire much confidence. They also chose to file the AE despite knowing, and choosing not to point out there, that I was permitted by admin BU Rob13 to edit the article. I don't know if I'm expected to have this engraved in stone:

@Mar4d: After a complete review of the situation and a review of your sanction itself, I do not object to your participation in that discussion. You are restricted from edits or pages about the conflict, which is actually narrower than a usual topic ban. This page is not about the topic, and neither was your edit, so even if the discussion broaches on the topic, you're very technically fine. Related to this, I've indefinitely topic banned Sdmarathe from this topic area. I'm extremely unimpressed with both the current and previous attempts to remove opposition from discussions through various processes [1]

Ivanvector had echoed some sentiments on the RfC recently elsewhere. I'm also going to refer comments by power~enwiki not too long back.

My comments on that article and talk page have been completely limited to the discussion on Pakistan only, and finding neutral, reliable sources on the inclusion of Pakistan. The 'conflict' TBAN never came up, nor have I anywhere breached into that area. I'd also like to add that Pakistan has been listed on regional power since at least 2009 as others pointed out on the talk page, so repeatedly (not just once) and deliberately trying to bring up the TBAN, making off-topic references to it, in an issue and discussion that is of little relevance to it, to me, is WP:POINTY and really stretching the limits of weaponizing TBAN restrictions. That especially on an article which I'm not banned from in the first place.

I'm getting tired of these below-the-belt ploys, and I somewhat hope these repeat frivolous filings would be looked into too because this also, IMO, qualifies as disruptive. It's obviously too late to comment on the AE, but I thought I'd pen some of my final concerns just to convey my perspective. I suppose my only question, in defence, would be: how was this AE by Orientls, and some of the misleading statements in there, any different to what another user tried only a few days back? Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I'll admit my mistake: I thought you had already commented in the AE thread when I closed it. In general, I try not to comment on those thread before the user has had his say, but, in this case, somehow I missed you hadn't commented.
On the merits, BU Rob13 basically said what I was saying, that you did not violate your topic ban, even if your edits "were fairly close to the line" (my words) or "even if the discussion broaches on the topic" (this words). I think it would, generally speaking, be wiser for editors under restrictions to give a very wide berth to the topic area they were restricted from, but that's my personal opinion and, as long as you don't breach your topic ban, you will not be sanctioned further.
On why I haven't sanctioned Orientls, well, in my opinion, a sanction would not have been warranted here. I know that Rob topic banned Sdmarathe for pretty much the same thing, but, as I said when he appealed to AE, I found the sanction heavy-handed. It was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion, but not one I agreed with. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Briancua

Dear Salvio thank you for your intervention on the edit-warring notice board regarding User:Briancua. I probably didn't express myself very well and probably didn't use the right formatting. But it was out of desperation really. I am absolutely miserable at the way Briancua has been behaving over a range of articles and I don't know what to do anymore. I've been editing for years and enjoy it, but I've been put off now to the extent that I'm not sure I want to edit anymore. Briancua is simply partisan in pushing a biased conservative religious agenda - he/she uses the cover of pointing to various bits of contradictory guidance in whatever way suits them to make sure their point of view is the one that always triumphs. He/ she is determined to do whatever they can to make sure editors like me that highlight concerns or challenge them are ultimately disgraced and banned. There is no reasoned or rational discussion, there is no hint of compromise. There is no suggestion of them making edits that are for AND against the position of the Catholic Church. I tried an ANI but no-one seemed to respond. I'm sorry for unburdening myself here - it's probably wrong of me. I think maybe it's more sensible if I just take a long break. Apologies again.Contaldo80 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you tried to go to ANI and nobody responded, then there are two chances: either your complaint was unactionable or you failed a. to specify what the problem was, b. to clarify what the administrative measure you wanted was, or c. to provide clear evidence. Speaking personally, if your complaint was similar to the one you posted at ANEW, then I'm not surprised people did not respond to it: it was very confusing and not easy to follow at all. If you think there is something wrong with Briancua's editing, my advice would be to start throwing together a complaint that's easy to understand, where you clarify a. why his conduct is problematic, b. what you want administrators to do, and c. you show disruption, using diffs. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Southern Rhodesia independence referendum

Hi Salvio. Thanks for protecting the page, but (I'm sorry to be a pain) the version you've reverted to also contains a clear factual error in stating that it was a whites only vote (the NYT source makes it clear that a small number (10,000) of black voters were enrolled for the referendum. Cheers, Number 57 21:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: and @Drassow: is there a compromise wording that would satisfy you both, pending discussion? I hesitate to make edits because I don't want to edit an article I have just acted as an administrator on, but at the same time I don't want to leave a factual error in. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I am more than willing to compromise, but I demand that sources must be cited and referenced. I have provided a source from my end, and should @Number 57: provide another source, then I would be happy to agree on a middle ground for the text. Drassow (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drassow: you demand?? Seriously? You don't own the page so you can't really demand anything... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, what Zackmann said. Making demands is most definitely not the best way to achieve consensus. Also, I'm not trying to find the best wording, just a temporary fix that will get rid of the factual mistake while you discuss the issue. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: @Number 57: and @Drassow:, in the meantime, I have simply removed the sentence that was factually incorrect per IAR. As I said, this is just meant as a temporary fix; if you have a better proposal, I'm more than open to it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there is any possibility of compromise. The "fact" from the Smith book is IMO not an acceptable inclusion given its obvious false nature. The only way it could be included would be something along the lines of "Although Ian Smith claimed that all citizens were able to vote, only 105,000 of the country's 4 million population (and just 10,000 of the 3.8m black Rhodesians) were enrolled." However, I don't see any value in including something like this as it would just look like it was being included to paint Smith as a liar. It would be better simply to have a 3O on the inclusion of the source on the talk page. Number 57 21:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to remove myself from the rest of the conversation. I don't really have a shoe in the game of that particular page. Just seems to me to be one user (Number 57) doing their very best to AGF and follow the rules and procedures vs a second user (Drassow) who is stomping their feet and demanding that things be done their way or they will revert until the page is protected again. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: stop playing semantics, you know what I meant originally. Reverting to insulting me does not invalidate the reference I provided. Intellectual standards must be upheld, and that is what I'm stressing. Going loosey-goosey with removing cited information is a bad practice. As for @Salvio giuliano: I suppose I'd revert it back to this version for now while the matter is sorted out. And @Number 57: you cannot just declare a source to be false, given that the book was fact checked by J.R.T. Wood, a former professor from the University of Durban-Westville. Until another source can contest the information and disprove it, it should be taken as the authoritative consensus, no? We had already covered in talk how despite not being barred, many boycotted, and ~3,000,000 tribal blacks did not make the effort to travel to the cities to register, as they saw the indaba as an easier option. Your pseudo research is not to be considered valid as it would violate WP:NOR. Drassow (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The figures I quote are from the NYT source and the one used in the results table. I don't understand your drive to include such patently misleading information in the article. Number 57 21:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, WP:IDHT... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Your source does not contradict mine, nor does the chart. People not voting is not evidence of barred voters, that is a non sequitur fallacy. @Zackmann08: you said you were going to remove yourself. If you're not contributing anything besides insults then shoo. Drassow (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Not an insult, just pointing out how you continue to violate policy. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• How about something along the lines of "Legally, all citizens were allowed to vote; however, only 105,000 of the country's 4 million population (and just 10,000 of the 3.8m black Rhodesians) were enrolled"? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I can agree to that, I would modify it slightly, but end with a result along the following: "Legally, all citizens were allowed to vote; however, only 105,000 of the country's citizens (and just 10,000 of the 3.8m black Rhodesians) were enrolled, with roughly 3 million tribal blacks preferring to be represented via an indaba from October 22-27, and about 90% of eligable blacks boycotting." @Number 57: can you agree to such a paragraph? Drassow (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't agree to that. Firstly not all citizens were able to register to vote because not all adults met the income requirements to be on either the A or B voter rolls (see Elections in Southern Rhodesia#1961 constitution) - again you have to question that source if it's making a claim that's untrue. Secondly the statement implies they could have voted but didn't (although the second part clarifies this, it's still a somewhat mislading start to the sentence). Also, the bit Drassow adds about "preferring to be represented via an indaba" is dubious in the extreme (I would strongly question the reliability of the source if it states that). Number 57 23:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This was not an election, this was a referendum, the same rules do not apply. You're comparing apples to oranges. Either way, how would *you* propose modifying it? We've gotta make this work together in a civil manner while taking into account sources. Drassow (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

work together in a civil manner you finally realized that? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You said you were removing yourself... right? If you could stop being such a child while we work to resolve this matter that doesn't relate to you, that'd be great. Drassow (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The same eligibility rules did apply, hence why the NYT mentions the A and B voter rolls. As for what I'd say, perhaps something like "Only 105,444 of the colony's 4m population were registered to vote in the referendum, and many of the registered black voters did not vote." This can be sourced to the NYT article above and the source used in the results table. Number 57 08:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Your line seems redundant considering the chart. As for the voter rolls, I have not seen a single other source mention the A and B rolls while I can cite three that lack them. The elections in Zimbabwe does not specify A and B voter rolls for the referendum while the do in every other election. I question the accuracy of the source you're providing. Going off of yours, I'd state, "Many eligible black voters did not register or boycotted. Tribal blacks were consulted via an indaba that lasted from October 22-27, of which the tribal leaders voted in unanimous support." This allows for a transition into the critique of the tribal indaba, "However, Britain did not consider the indaba representative of the majority black population as the tribal leaders were in the pay of Ian Smith’s Government." Drassow (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This source is explicit: "On 8 October 1964, the Southern Rhodesia Government initiated a measure, the Referendum Bill, which specified that only those who were enrolled on the A and B Rolls would be entitled to vote in this referendum". I hope this puts the matter to bed (and apologies to Salvio for this all taking place on your talk page). Number 57 11:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• • • Salvio, it would be great if you could shift this discussion in toto to the talk page of the article. Warmly, Lourdes 00:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Salvio giuliano. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)