User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2019-12

__NOINDEX__

Proposed deletion of Esmail (Afghan leader)


The article Esmail (Afghan leader) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The administrative review board is a primary source, need additional sources to establish notability. I was unable to find any."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cerebellum (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A certain editor's history
In reply to your recent question: WP:LTA/BKFIP – community-banned for the kind of behavior you just witnessed. Favonian (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs
Thank you for your recent articles, including Helen Spitzer Tichauer, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

About Rui Pereira
Hi, Geo Swan! About your request for protection at RFP, I am going to decline it. As was pointed out there, an editor is within his rights to remove an unsourced sentence. And by repeatedly restoring it, you are the one who is in danger of violating WP:3RR and getting called out for edit warring. I suggest you stop doing that. Or else restore it with a source, at which point their removal would be disruptive.

You seem to feel that these IPs are actually a blocked user you are familiar with. In that case, I suggest you either report them at that blocked user's SPI investigation page (if there was one), or else mention the situation to any checkuser, who can quietly check them without the usual problem that they are not supposed to publicly link IPs to named users. There are two three different IPs here, but they all geolocate similarly. And I think I can guess who you are talking about. The one I noticed was blocked in July 2018 for having a promotional username, and then came back in August under their own name and edited the article to remove all the bad stuff.

My own reaction to that article is that I would be tempted to nominate it for deletion. I don't see how he meets GNG. But I see you wrote the article so you are probably not inclined to do that. However, the article does need much better sourcing. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you are still doing the reverts, accusing the other party of being a sock of a blocked editor. You are NOT ALLOWED to make that kind of accusation without any evidence and without taking any steps to get evidence or deal with the situation, such as reporting the issue and your evidence at SPI or to an administrator/checkuser. (Note that I cannot settle this issue since I am not a checkuser. See Category:Wikipedia checkusers.) I have locked the page for 24 hours, since the edit warring (noting that you were not the only one reverting) was getting disruptive and nothing was happening at the talk page. This kind of disagreement needs to be resolved at the talk page, not in edit summaries. Your best permanent solution to this situation is to prove that the IPs actually are the blocked user you accuse them of being. Otherwise you really have no justification for reverting them and restoring the unsourced content they keep deleting. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , how much experience do you have with filing SPI reports? Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b/Archive. I initiated more than two dozen SPI investigations about this particular wikistalker, so far.  My experience, so far, has been for administrators at SPI and semi-protection to pass the buck, and each tell me I should be using the other channel to address my wikistalker.
 * WRT checkuser... Excuse me, isn't checkuser's use to look behind named wiki-IDs, and examine the underlying IP addresses they use?  So, those with checkuser authority can compare the IP addresses used, and make an informed opinion as to whether multiple IDs are a single individual, or room-mates?  So, since, my wikistalker's use of over 80 different anonymous IP addresses, suggests they are using some form of IP spoofing, do you really think calling for a checkuser would have any value whatsoever?
 * As for documenting that the IPs were my wikistalker, you seem to have forgotten the effort I put into documenting their block evasion at Requests_for_page_protection here and here.
 * There is something wildly off-balance here. Documenting my wikistalker's vandalism, has, over the last three years, consumed literally hundreds of hours of my time.  I am not exagerrating.  Hundreds of hours.  Meanwhile, each instance of vandalism has cost them a trivial amount of time, maybe only 30 seconds each.  You seem to be claiming I did not make enough effort to document their vandalism.  However, am I incorrect to think you didn't bother to actually take a look at the documentation I did provide?  Each of those over two dozen SPI investigations I initiated required a significant effort.  And, frankly, those who monitor the SPI page can't be counted to read them thoroughly enough to justify the effort I put into them.
 * I am not the vandal here, and I question whether the implied admonishments you have left here are in order. What I would prefer would be for the project's administrators to present an united front, with me, to counter this wikistalker.  Your reaction at semi-protection is not the only time an administrator's first reaction was to side with the indefinitely blocked vandal.  It is really disappointing.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see how this would be frustrating, and you aren’t getting much/any help from admins. One thing that might have helped us would be: WHO is the blocked user you say these are all socks of? You kept pointing to IPs and accusing them, but we have had nothing but your accusation to go on. That is of no use to a non-checkuser like me, and you never said who you think the parent is. You did give me a clue this time, mentioning User:Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b, so thank you - at least now I can do a little detective work. That name was created in February 2017 and indeffed for sockpuppetry in November 2017 by Berean Hunter. Their SPI discussion led me to also look at User:CommotioCerebri, which was apparently the original name of the “Renamed user”. That account is now blocked and globally locked. I also saw a mention of LTA User:Cebr1979, but AFAICT checkusers did not find a connection. That account was blocked in May 2017 and continued to have recognized socks until December 2018. Apparently that LTA mostly uses IPs now. I don’t know which of these people, if any, you accuse the current IPs of being. If you don’t want to say here, you could email me. But we can see how effective it is for someone to edit only as IPs - it’s much harder for an IP to get identified as a blocked user. I also noticed an admin comment that since the addresses can change often it is almost hopeless blocking them. Rangeblocks can be imposed, short term, in cases of disruptive behavior. But maybe we could use geolocations plus editing behavior to treat IPs as WP:DUCKs. The two IPs currently at issue geolocate to the same place. User:Berean Hunter, can you tell me where the blocked users 4927…. and Commotio… geolocate? Or if I ask you if it’s a certain location, can you say yes or no? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I can't disclose locations due to the checkuser and privacy policies. We can but only in the event of very serious LTA abuse and this wouldn't measure up to that level. One thing that I can do which may help is that I have requested that the stewards undo the courtesy vanishing so that we should soon only have to deal with the account by name and not the renamed user's name. I may be able to look into this more tomorrow but it is getting late here and I'm headed for bed.
 * Regarding the IPs, I have put some blocks in place. No accounts found. Regarding the undoing of the courtesy vanishing, that will happen but there is a new technical problem with global renames that will mean that it is delayed. That problem is being addressed at phabricator here.
 * The courtesy vanishing has been reversed. You may want to update any documentation. I have requested that the SPI case and its archive be moved back to the original name.
 * , thanks for the reversal.
 * Thanks for trying the checkuser tool. I last requested the use of checkuser last April, when they made the mistake of using a newly created ID, for their harrasment.  I still don't really understand the limits of checkuser.  Some of your colleagues carry being circumspect as to its results to obfuscating how it works.  April is too late to check, now, correct?  Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, they are at it again --  Geo Swan (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * April is too late to check. We have a 90 day window for data retention within the system. If that account pops up again then they could be checked. 100.15.xxx.xxx is not the same person as that IP is in Virginia and not a proxy.

File source problem with File:HMS Endurance 3 copy.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:HMS Endurance 3 copy.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 21:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , Apparently I uploaded this in 2006, when I was newbie. I looked for the original.  And only kind of found it - here .  I think it is clearly the same image, although it is lower resolution, and black and white.  It identifies the photographer, and the date.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree that this is enough to know the source of the image. I removed the no source tag. Wikiacc (¶) 23:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, let me thank you. I'll port it to the commons.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Diane Webber (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Diane Webber (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patrick Weathers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Insider ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Patrick_Weathers check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Patrick_Weathers?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)