User talk:MelanieN/archive 76

Lessons from the pandemic

Stolen from a friend's facebook page:

If nothing else, the coronavirus teaches us that ... ummm ... hang on ... shoot, I really thought I had one there for a minute!

IMO that kind of sums up the situation perfectly. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• EPA? Might want to check your notes. starship.paint (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  EPA? I don't get it. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  You forgot? Oops. starship.paint (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Upgrade Protection for Ariana Grande

Hi, please make the Ariana Grande page fully protected permanently due to excessive vandalism from multiple users. One account has already been blocked from editing but they are multiple others that keep vandalizing. Please make sure the page protection is raised Randomperson7893457 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:Randomperson7893457. You have already made this same request at WP:RFPP, where it was declined. What I see: there is a content dispute at that page, with edit warring, and two of the disputants have been blocked for edit warring. What I don’t see, up to now: discussion at the article's talk page. An administrator has started a discussion thread at the talk page, and that is where you need to discuss what should and should not be in the article. Please share your opinion there; that is the system for determining consensus. And do NOT accuse the people who disagree with you of vandalism. Having a different opinion about what should be in the article is not vandalism. As for full protection, that is sometimes used for a day or two if the edit warring cannot be stopped, but never permanently. Think about it: permanent full protection would mean that nobody but administrators could ever edit that article again. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Please block

Please block PixelNow (talk · contribs), this guy made more edits today to various city articles despite all the warnings he's received for the past few months. Obviously lacks clue and the competence to edit here. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads-up. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Please put on your administrator's hat

Please consider the following:

1. An editor creates a new article. Perhaps it is titled "Science policy of the Donald Trump administration". (This new article title seems to comply with WP:NPOVTITLE.)
2. As a caution, you (as an administrator) tag the article talk page with {{American politics AE}}. (The tag is appropriate because most WP editors realize that Trump-related articles are subject to disruptive editing. You are setting the stage to hammer editors who ....)
3. Still, another editor comes along and moves/changes the article title to "Trump administration political interference with science agencies".

What would you do? – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No comment. This question is hypothetical and bears no relation to reality. As for the article where you and I disagree: You have created your proposal for a Requested Move; that's perfectly appropriate, let's see where it goes. I obviously won't be taking any administrative actions with regard to that proposal or that article, per WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW you should remove the question mark from your suggested rename posted in the move request. I don't think you are actually proposing to call the article Science policy of the Donald Trump administration? but that's what it says. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The question mark is there per WP:RM#CM because I'm suggesting more than one name. But I see I've misread the guidance. I'll cleanup the request. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

S. Rich OK, good. Don't forget that you are allowed to express an opinion yourself - especially now that you are not recommending a particular title in the RM heading. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection for 2020 Atlantic hurricane season

Hi there MelanieN, and I appreciate the protection you give to pages. However, I disagree with the protection of 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. The actual page that parties have been edit-warring about was Hurricane Delta, though both parties have backed off since this morning. The revert that Drdpw made was reverting vandalism. Please consider lowering the level of protection of extended-confirmed or semi protection. Thanks! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:Destroyeraa, and thanks for your note. Yes, they were arguing about Hurricane Delta, but they were doing it on the hurricane season page. They did mostly move their argument to the talk page when they began to approach 3RR. And yes, I know that edit by Drdpw was reverting an edit by a now-blocked user. The problem there is the arguing over which image to use. (Maybe they could just agree to use both?) I do hate to full-protect an article that needs such constant updating. But it's only for 24 hours, maybe they can reach agreement in that time. Other than the edit warring I wasn't inclined to protect the article at all; I saw IPs doing constructive editing just as much or more than problem editing. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. In storm infoboxes, there can only be one paragraph, and since this storm is very erratic and had multiple images of peak intensity, there was (understandably) arguing over which image to use. I will contact you or another admin when there is clear consensus for one image. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with full protection. I say we partially block the editors from the article for 24 hours instead. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to protect pages that are the subject of an edit war. The protection level must be set according to the editing privileges of those involved, which in this case includes extended confirmed editors. In regard to the active season, it's not an urgent matter, as there are no storms currently active and probably won't be for at least several days. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It does. Damage estimates could come in for Gamma and Delta, etc. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, the block period ends in less than 12 hours. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Still partial blocks would be more appropriate. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of my philosophy (see User:MelanieN/Page protection) is that in cases of edit warring it is often better to full-protect the page rather than to block the warriors. The edit warriors are often long term editors, proceeding in what they believe to be good faith, who just need a reminder about WP:EW. Or there might be more people on one side than the other, which could result in my blocking only one side of the dispute. As an administrator I am not supposed to take sides in the dispute, which I might inadvertently do, by blocking some people and not others, or by imposing a level of protection which screens out newer editors while leaving the field clear for longer term editors. Hence, short term full protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

No, this is not a full block. This is a short term block from that article. Partial blocks. List of partial blocks. I think partial blocks are best because then other people can edit and the users blocked can still edit other articles. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know what partial blocks are. My philosophy, and my reasoning above, still stand. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is this. By fully protecting an article, you lock it from all of us. By partial blocking the users in dispute, you lock it from them, but other users can still edit. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's time to stop arguing about partial and full blocks or protection. It's futile, since the protection expires in five hours. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. And the remaining time would be much better spent discussing the content at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Melanie why protect accounts that are clearly representing misrepresentations and fraud?

If you care about facts and promoting them then do your research before you act all high and mighty and change peoples edits! Black lives matter and your part of the problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B06A:B96F:2C9D:8EE1:C66E:5581 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. If I knew what you are talking about, I could reply. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Marques Brownlee

Hello, I noticed that you have indefinitely semi-protected Marques Brownlee a few months ago on the 29 May 2020 and I am proposing the page protection should instead be moved down to pending changes protection or maybe back down to unprotected after an expiry date considering the lack of edits on the page the current protection could reduce possible constructive edits from ip's in the future. Thanks, Terasail^[Talk] 01:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:Terasail, and thanks for the suggestion. As of last May this article had been under near-constant vandalism and possible sock puppetry, and had been short-term protected many, many times. But you are correct that the volume of editing has greatly decreased in the last 6 months, so I am willing to give pending change protection a try. -- MelanieN (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask

Will you be a comforting shoulder to cry on?] Anyway, Gem is taking a break - but the dramatic switch in topcs weirded me out and so I went mining his contributions to see if this is a regular pattern or some spontaneous conversion. Unsurprisingly its fundamentally obvious the user struggles to express himself in English, and in fact just wholesale misunderstands words or applies them to the wrong situation. I am not sure what to recommend for him to get help or at least limit his more disruptive behaviour when he is apparently incapable or unwilling to read the required sources. Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I won't be much help, I'm afraid. I happened across that discussion and felt inspired to respond to just one of the many allegations that were being made; I don't intend to follow up. If Gem has left the area that will be a great relief to everybody IMO; they appear to be one of those people who you can't call a troll because they stick to the subject, but who can discuss and argue endlessly until they frustrate or exhaust everybody else. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping there was some kind of mentor system for non-native speakers. I think he's unfortunately going to go on everyones ignore list then. Ta. Koncorde (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Michio Suzuki

You protected Michio Suzuki (inventor) a few months back; the same IP is back it seems. If I am in the wrong place apologies. Best,  Mr.choppers | :✎  17:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr.choppers: Right you are. Same IP range, same unexplained edit. I gave it two months this time. Thanks for the alert. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if it's because of the ip, but there are now articles online listing both birthdates... Sometimes it is hard to avoid the WP effect on other sources - or perhaps it is some anomaly with the Japanese calendars?  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, here is the City of Hamamatsu listing it as the 18th. That should settle things.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you put this evidence on the article talk page so you can point to it in the future. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

Hello MelanieN, if you remember I had requested for protection of 2020–21 I-League because of persistent unsourced cotent addition by some newly registered users, which you had given final warnings to. But guess what they continued their same editing behaviour of adding the unsourced contents, and not only in this article, but multiple articles. I think actions can be taken now, because either they are incompetent to understand guidelines or simply ignoring. It's frustrating now to correct, undo or even check everytime they add something. (Akbar Gazi and Messi Khar are those users) Drat8sub (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I gave them both partial blocks from that article only. I didn't see current disruptive editing at other articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope now they may care to take guidelines seriously. Regarding other articles, one of the editor Akbar Gazi is doing that at Mohammedan SC (Kolkata) and BLP vio at Mohammed Fatau. Drat8sub (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that - but I also saw that their edits at those articles are not getting reverted, so I took that as evidence that their editing there is constructive or at least not problematic. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Anyway, I think the partial block will surely work. Drat8sub (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If they don't get the message, it can be extended to a full block. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I don't get this, if they were blocked from editing the article, how come they edited it today. Messi Khar edited the article today, that too unsourced. I'm confused about it but one thing is clear, the user is incompetent to edit wikipedia. Drat8sub (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC) I think they don't know that they have a talk page and they don't know how to see notification or they are totally ignoring, in both way problematic. Drat8sub (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh! Well, I’m baffled. I know I did it, but it does not show up in my logs or theirs.

Update: I just tried again, and again it did not register in the logs. It must be some kind of glitch with Twinkle. I will try it manually.

Update: OK, that worked; now Messi Khar appears to be partial-blocked. I may let Akbar slide since he has been doing constructive editing elsewhere. But let me know if he hits 2020–21 I-League again. Thanks for letting me know about this. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Phew!! ok fine. I will let you know if they pursue anything like that. Drat8sub (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, sorry MelanieN, Akbar now removed contents from the article without explanation (players who are not announced by club that their contracts are terminated). He did that before while adding names. Drat8sub (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. He is now blocked from that article as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)