User talk:GeneralNotability: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

2019/May 2019/June 2019/July 2019/August 2019/September 2019/October 2019/November 2019/December 2020/January 2020/February 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July

Not sure what to do with a user conduct problem? This is a good place to start.

Hi, I just wanted to open this chat to discuss the subject that your brought up in the arbitration forum. I went about a systematic update of company pages only because the UN report in question is something of a seminal work in terms of clearly defining, in thoroughly vetted terms, which companies are involved in what activities in the West Bank. It seemed like a glaring omission on Wikipedia that this significant report had gone unmentioned (I have sort of assumed it got passed over because everyone was busy with Covid-19), so yes, I've been trying to fill an information gap, but not in an unwarranted way I think. You were not the only editor that undid Mike Rothman2's reversions. So did the established editor Berrely, who noted on the Sonol article that the content was "written very neutrally and cites suitable sources".

The only POV I see this as pushing is that of the UN, which in my mind is not particularly POV, as the collective voice of the international community. Perhaps this is a mistaken viewpoint from the perspective of Wikipedia. I am happy to be put in my place on the subject if I am genuinely out of order. But I would add that before I added these new criticism sections, many of these articles were lazily unexpanded, glowing and semi-promotional, and that I have also made other changes, including thoroughly vetting the sources, improving readability and tagging dead links for the future reference of other editors that may wish to review and expand the articles.

I had no doubt that there would be users who did not like these additions, but, in line with the 'be bold' mantra of Wikipedia, that was not in my mind a reason not to go ahead with adding discussion-provoking material. The controversy over the Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot page, for instance, has already led to significant improvement of the overall sourcing of the piece. I would say that rather proves the point that adding this material is also a positive development for these articles by stimulating the re-editing process for what were otherwise a rather tired collection of ailing company profiles with rotting links. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323, so your edits may well have all been relevant. My comment was based mostly on the pattern of your edits - mass addition of criticism sections is often indicative of somebody who is trying to push a particular agenda. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well it did also occur to me that I might get flagged for it, even if only by a bot, due to the pattern of the edits, but an alternative approach didn't really come to mind, and, like I said, I didn't believe that these edits were unwarranted and therefore something to hide. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I just wanted to let you know that Mike Rothman2, who you gave a 72-hour ban on 14 September, just returned to exactly the same pattern of disruptive edits that led to his initial ban. He even expanded upon the reversions he made previously, for instance on the Bank Hapaolim page, where he removed details on the institution's tax evasion, downplaying an incident that was "the second-largest recovery by the US Department of Justice since it began investigating the facilitation of US tax evasion by foreign banks in 2008" to a single line. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference @Iskandar323:

From Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban - if an editor is banned from the topic [...] this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article [...] but also everything else that has to do with [that topic] such as: discussions or suggestions about [that topic] anywhere on Wikipedia. Seddon ^talk 18:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joseph Stalin on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might want to revert vandalism and POV edits by Serchia to the last stable version. He started an edit war by removing sourced content and causing an edit war, and even goes as far as changing the order of ethnicities in the city in a racist attempt to move the Turkmen name to the end and minimise their significance even though they are the historical majority in the city. Thank you. 82.24.229.152 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, that's a content dispute, and I am not planning to intervene in a content dispute beyond protecting the page. Take it to the talk page. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: someone seems to have added back the clubs and associations you removed. You might be interested in taking a look at it. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 17:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Moonlight, yup, I saw - and by a Mason IP, no less! I'm not really feeling like getting into a fight over it right now. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GN, I'm trying to move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rezaee.original to show the oldest account as the master (although I intend to close it without action, as there's no evidence of WP:BADSOCKery). Trouble is, I can't. I select 'All sections', and tick the 'Move/merge full case' button, hit 'Continue', and am taken to the next screen; I can enter the new sockmaster's name, but there's no button to proceed with the move. Has something changed? Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 14:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, yup. It appears that some of my HTML was violating the official spec, but browsers just started having issues with that in the past week. TheresNoTime spotted the issue and I've committed their fix - let me know if the problem continues. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the kids say nowadays.. get gud scrub ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GN - working again now. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 11:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 37.120.237.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Hello GN. Would you object to my converting your block of Special:Contributions/37.120.237.0/24 into a hardblock? I found some logged-in abuse from this range while researching a sock case. You had marked this range as a Colocation webhost. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, no objection at all - and in the future, you're always welcome to turn any of my rangeblocks into hardblocks without asking my permission. I do appreciate you checking with me, though! GeneralNotability (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, looks like that was my fault. I had an edit conflict and must have resolved it incorrectly. Sorry about that! -- RoySmith (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem RoySmith, it was an accident...I hope. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I see you’ve blocked User:EvidenceAlliquots for edit warring, I guess you’d better check my edits, as I’ve not been angelic myself. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GimliDotNet, I appreciate the honesty. I did see that you were the other side of the edit war, but I chose not to block you in this case since basically all of EvidenceAlliquots's edit history consists of edit-warring poor sources into articles. Next time, take it to WP:ANEW for admin help, okay? GeneralNotability (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, cheers. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly consider if this is block evasion. The first thing this user did was to create a template. Thank you. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru, I see no grounds to suspect block evasion. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeneralNotability. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.~TNT (she/they • talk) 09:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I came across an edit that you reverted which I believe is accurate and is not a crypto scam or something of that effect as it appears you thought at the time. The website merely has an interesting domain name, perhaps the coinye.net website would have been a better choice for the original editor to have used to improve trust. As the edit states, The original Coinye (not a fork or modified or anything like that) is still accessible with running nodes and active miners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1020771435 EL-SSS (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EL-SSS, are there any reliable sources supporting this? I don't have any reason to doubt you, but it does look very suspicious when someone changes URLs like that (especially with cryptocurrency, a topic subject to lots of spam and scams), so I'd be a lot more comfortable if there were a good source supporting the new domain. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I completely understand. I'll take a deeper look and get back to you with some credible sources, or make the edit myself if you think that's the best option. EL-SSS (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EL-SSS, if you've got the sources, go ahead and re-add the link (just make sure to cite the new sources!) GeneralNotability (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes Blablubbs Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes Callanecc Mkdw Interface administrator changes Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

	The Technical Barnstar
	Sincerely apologize for incorrectly doing that merge and I give my condolences for you fixing it. I could have sworn I was doing it wrong when I was doing it, anyways. Panini!🥪 21:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this involve going leaving a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves for moves like this? Panini!^🥪 21:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panini!, yes, I believe WP:RM/TR is the correct venue. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks! This puppet master is extremely annoying, though apparently not very bright. Skyerise (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Skyerise. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[8] vs [9].-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, weird indeed - this has to be one of the more labor-intensive ways of gaming ECP. Magic CU goggles have anything to say about the two of them? GeneralNotability (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The goggles were completely unhelpful in this instance. It was like staring into a fog patch.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, search me, then. This is either very weird ECP gaming or one of those infernal TikTok memes (probably not that second one, but it's around that level of dumb disruption). I'll keep an eye on 806 for a while in case more of them show up. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeneralNotability. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Deb (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, seen and acknowledged, thank you. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi GN, re this closure; does that mean their comments on talkpages (including in an RfC) can be struck out per WP:TPO (Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban...) in the same way as for blocked socks? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, no - that only would apply if they were socking after a block, so if one of the users had been blocked and then asked their friends to go comment (and this is an unusual case anyway, so I'd recommend not striking anything regardless). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GN, thanks for the clarification. Does that then mean that where they've all !voted the same way in an RfC, that they are each given the same weight as each of the other participants? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, that one I can't give a solid answer to, sorry - I'm not really a discussion-closer. I would assume the multiple !votes would be discounted in some way by the closer, but this is outside my area of expertise. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to just fix that? :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suffusion of Yellow, you're a better filter-writer than I am - go for it, with my thanks. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Suffusion of Yellow: sorry to butt in, but why aren't you an admin yet? ~TNT (she/her • talk) 23:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question... GeneralNotability (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: Because for the last year or so, next month has always been a better month for RFA. Really no other reason... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. Main issue was that !a == b means (!a) == b (as in C etc.). Oddly !a rlike b does mean !(a rlike b), but that one just drives me crazy so I always use the explicit parentheses anyway. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suffusion of Yellow, argh, too much time in Python lately I guess (if not a == b...not that that's always good practice either...). Thanks for fixing that - you rock! GeneralNotability (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I also excluded bots; I assume you want to set this warn at some point. What are your thoughts about creating a "spiclerk" user group (with no special user rights)? Not only would that make maintaining this filter easier, but WP:POPUPS and the various userhighlighter scripts would make it immediately clear who is a clerk. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suffusion of Yellow, good thinking. I'm not sure there would be consensus for an spiclerk role, since it's just a couple of filters and SPI clerks aren't supposed to be "special". GeneralNotability (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah not too famaliar with SPI, so if you think it will fail I won't bother proposing it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't appreciate that you deleted my user page, because of whatever you perceived as "attacking other editors". First off, I'll say whatever I want to say on MY user page...what if I came to your page, and deleted everything just because I felt so? You would be really upset, if not rightfully pissed off...if you say otherwise, you're a fucking liar. Plus, the way you did it was cowardly, instead of just sending me a message addressing whatever concerns you had. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if you or anyone where offended by what I say (which is going back up, by the way), and we can get into any edit wars if you want, but I'm not going to tolerate disrespect from anyone around here, especially from a so-called "administrator". ShawnHill (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]