User talk:A. B./August 2023

Re. WP:BITE
Hi! I thought that concerns about my behavior (in this case re WP:BITE) are better discussed on a talk page, rather than at an AFD.

First, I‘d like to say that I fundamentally agree that it would be a shame if these editors did not continue to contribute to WP. However, my interactions with them were clearly aimed at helping them navigate the complex policies and guidelines.

My very first interaction (after the automated PROD message) was to offer my help. The subsequent misunderstanding regarding WP:PAID was unfortunate, but I think understandable given the wording of their reply. I apologised and informed them of WP:COI, which clearly applies here.

I then offered my help again, and then we had a brief exchange about independence of sources.

I think opening the SPI investigation is clearly explained over there and quite legitimate. While good intentions should be assumed, and I did make that assumption, meatpuppeting is nonetheless inappropriate (and can look very similar to sockpuppeting).

As the PROD was declined and notability issues were not addressed, I think an AFD was quite appropriate.

Again, it really would be a shame if these editors are so discouraged as to not return. But I‘m not sure how I should have handled this better without overstretching AGF beyond reasonability. I‘m open to the idea that I may have messed up; if I have, please tell me what I should have done differently. I appreciate your time with this, thanks for taking a look! :)Actualcpscm (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, now we have a double BITE problem, which is that I was on a real warpath when I left those messages. I realized this several hours later. So please accept my apologies.
 * In the meantime, I'll think about your question.
 * Thanks for reaching out and thanks for caring!
 * —13:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC) A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries! :) I understand that this outcome (we might lose valuable editors) really sucks, and defending newcomers against biting is important, so thanks to you as well for caring! Hopefully you can get them back to working on WP (referring to your emails). Happy editing! :) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'm really honored!
 * Suggestion - talk to an admin to withdraw the AfD "without prejudice" for now until the volunteers are done with it, then reevaluate it for notability.
 * Just a thought - your call.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, but I'm not sure why I need an admin for that I could just withdraw (i.e. speedy keep) and make clear that it's with the intention of having the AFD later. Or did you have something else in mind? Actualcpscm (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a better idea! Let the volunteers know.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Question
Hi A. B., I saw you had added some additional WikiProject notifications at WP:Articles for deletion/Felix Omobude. Is there a tool that makes adding such notifications easy? S0091 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If you find one, let me know. I did those manually. If it looks like I did them quickly, it's just because I had three browser windows open and was copying and pasting. When I was done, I hit "publish changes" in quick succession.
 * I need to be more proactive in looking for tools. I was a prolific editor/admin 10-15 years ago, then took a 10-year Wikibreak. I'm sort of still in 2012!
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that just reminded me that 2012 was more than a decade ago :O Actualcpscm (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I was more interesting then.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I think a topic is a bit too off by itself get much benefit from our traditional deletion-sorting lists; I'll post at a specialized Wikiproject. The classic example is:
 * Articles for deletion/H₂weh₁yú
 * For starters, how do you even pronounce H₂weh₁yú? It looks like a name Elon Musk would give his child.
 * It's a Proto-Indo-European reconstructed word so I left a message for the experts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics.
 * Some might call this CANVASSING; I call it a cry for help.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol, never thought this question would lead to Elon Musk. Dang, was hoping you had some magic up you sleeve but kudos to you for making the effort manually.  S0091 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

notability
FWIW several notability criteria have tightened since 2012 (welcome back, btw :) ). NSPORTS and PORNBIO come to mind (the latter was simply deprecated), but also NCORP, which was completely rewritten 5ish years ago. It is a higher standard than GNG now, including e.g. Attention solely from local media ... or media of limited interest and circulation ... is not an indication of notability. (noticed your comment at Articles for deletion/Air Charter Service (2nd nomination)). I don't know if that one's notable, and probably won't offer a !vote -- just a heads up. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

KumoSpace
Outside the AfD discussion, thought you may be interested in this. Could be an opportunity to address the concerns of NCORP and how it is applied. CNMall41 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks!
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Important notice
Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. These should definitely apply to those 2 AfDs and their associated articles; especially WP:1RR.
 * Do not strike comments by other participants on the basis of unproven sock allegations as you have done. Get a checkuser first. Otherwise you are violating WP:ATTACK.
 * You are on the verge of getting sanctioned.
 * These AfDs will probably end up at WP:ANI, given current behaviour by many on both sides. You don't want to end up in the middle; outcomes are hard to predict. I suggest you just politely walk away for now to CYA; you've already made your points multiple times.
 * The closing admin will make their own decision based on evidence and policy, not folks' heated bludgeoning.
 * Do not CANVASS. There are indications of this on both sides. Checkusers have previously noted likely meat puppetry comments on your part. This could get you the "long goodbye" (indefinite ban).
 * I am driving the next several days and may be hard to reach. I have left Liz, an admin, a request to keep an eye on these articles and AfDs in the meantime.
 * Please, for your own good, lay low.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are being outright misleading with your false claims here. Let me correct you on every single point:
 * 1) What is the relevance of WP:1RR here? How it is applicable here?
 * 2) Checkusers won't check IP socks. As per the policy they are discouraged to do it except in very exceptional cases.
 * 3) I removed sock comments only because it was obvious as sky being blue that same sock is evading his block. All IPs got blocked within minutes. You are supposed to comply with the ethics even if they are opposed to your POV.
 * 4) What "both sides"? You made frivolous attempts to save Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad as proven with the "Delete" outcome on the AfD.
 * 5) Where I am engaging in canvassing? Only canvassing is being done by the IP sock not only here but also on Wikipedias of other languages.
 * 6) Not a single checkuser ever said that I am engaging in meatpuppetry.
 * Lastly, you will benefit from reading WP:CIR and WP:ASPERSIONS. You should read it urgently given your eagerness to make false claims. Just like you were doing on WP:AFD with regards to policies.
 * It makes no sense that you are trying to create conduct issue out of yourself with all these false claims over a block evading sockpuppet disrupting Wikipedia to create this article for over 10 years. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm traveling. Take my advice above or don't take my advice - it's up to you. I'll be at the beach.
 * Cheers,
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't checked, I haven't edited either AfDs for 4 days now because the IP sock is apparently gone. Enjoy your vacation! Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol invitation

 * I'm traveling the next 2 weeks. Maybe after that.
 * Thanks for what you all do.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, any time you feel up for it I'm confident the team would love to have you. Hope your travel goes smoothly! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

IP block exemption request
A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Vacation
Hello A. B., Just noticed that you will be away on vacation and wanted to wish you a good break. Take care. - Indefensible (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't
Make misleading reverts like that. Per WP:DENY and WP:SOCKSTRIKE, we are required not to waste time over requests by block evading socks.

If you have strong feelings over this AfD then start a new DRV on you own. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You are an involved party. You can be sanctioned for closing a DRV in which you’re involved, sock or no sock. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY and WP:SOCKSTRIKE does not care about who is involved. Stop your disruptive editing. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aman.kumar.goel - be ready for an extensive review of your edits, these two articles, their 2 AfDs and the DRV at WP:ANI if you keep this up. I’m ready for mine to be reviewed.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't let the door hit you. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your most recent comment aged poorly. You never even went to ANI.
 * You should’ve taken my advice from 4 days ago. Most IPs are ignorant of Wikipedia’s rules and you’ve found them easy to abuse by gaming the system. Your mistake is to now abrasively play wikilawyer with established editors who know this place even better than you.
 * I was an admin for several years before my long wikibreak. I’m not surprised this ended in tears.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you substantiate your nonsensical claim that "Most IPs are ignorant of Wikipedia’s rules and you’ve found them easy to abuse by gaming the system"? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You knew that, but I am following process. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Process is important which is what that AfD and DRV are all about. I’m on the wrong side of the trend at DRV but that happens. What shouldn’t happen is the shenanigans I saw at the AfD and the DRV.
 * Thanks for doing your part, Robert.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

CSD
Hello. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. In what way is this not unambiguous promotion? It's clear as day. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed the speedy tag on Draft:Punch Powertrain for several reasons:
 * The article is in draft space and it's not harming anything.
 * The company is probably notable if you look at the French Wikipedia's article: fr:Punch Powertrain
 * These guys are apparently global players -- perhaps the biggest -- in continuously variable transmission manufacturing.
 * That article is well-sourced. I looked at each ref.
 * A decent article is possible here.
 * We just gave the author feedback -- why not let them act on it first?
 * That was my reasoning, good or bad. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all good, but the draft was admittedly just promotion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it has a POV tone; nevertheless Wp:G11 states:
 * "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Related to Why Loiter? Campaign
The page was created by a group of people who did it together, hence there were edits by multiple users. Apart from that, does it not appear to be violating CSD A7 and CSD A11 if they are edited by a single group of people? The Activities section wholly looks that way. Requesting a friendly clarification so that I can differentiate the violations clearly in future. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's look at these criteria as they apply to our Why Loiter? Campaign article:
 * CSD A7: "This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability."
 * The articles states right in the lede that this program was featured in BBC 100 women -- that's the BBC and it's global -- it asserts notability.
 * The article goes on to cite many references to support not just a claim of notability but actual notability
 * CSD A11: "This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines."
 * Is there a reason to believe the editors that wrote the article invented this campaign or were somehow involved with its inception 9 years ago? I don't see any myself.
 * As noted above, the article asserts notability and is, in fact, notable.
 * Just because the Activities section sounds like the editors support the campaign doesn't mean you delete the article. Deletion ≠ cleanup. They cite references to support each claim. Collectively there's a POV issue but nothing that calls for deletion.
 * Does your tagging have anything to do with Sockpuppet investigations/TechGenWikinator03? It looks like this was possibly created during an edit-thon.
 * This is my reasoning and you are free to disagree with me. If you still feel the article should be deleted, you can take it to Articles for Deletion.
 * Regards,
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)