THC Science

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

AlisonW
Amberrock
Closedmouth
Scottywong

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]