User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2018/February

Supporting Indian Wikipedia Program resource distribution
In 2017 - 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India chapter (WMIN) and user groups will pilot a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program (Code name: Project Tiger) will:
 * (a) Support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and
 * (b) Sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

The objective of the program is to provide laptops and internet stipends for existing editors who need support to contribute more actively. 50 basic model Acer Chromebooks and Internet stipends for 100 contributors are available for distribution. Provided resources are the sole property of the beneficiaries and should be used for the betterment of the movement.

If you're an active Wikimedian, and interested to receive support from this project, please apply. It will take around 10 minutes of your time, and will ask descriptive questions about your contribution to Indic Wikimedia projects.


 * Apply at: Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program#Apply for support
 * Last date for submitting applications is 11th February 2018, 11:59 IST.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User creating non-notable articles
Hey, can you please look over this uses who has created 10 plus articles of which all but 2 have been either deleted or re-directed. Even the existing, in my opinion, two do not meet WP:GNG and should be either merged or deleted. The user has also uploaded multiple files with CR violations and done so for the same file multiple times. Most of their edits center around a single topic Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh) and are generally either un-sourced or poorly sourced. It seems that the user is WP:NOTHERE or atleast needs sometime kind of warning/restriction from creating more non-notable articles. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Complaint at WP:AE about User:Hyper9
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. You had previously imposed a six-month topic ban on this editor from Indian history. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Hindu Nobel laureates
I just closed Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (4th nomination) as keep. In the course of handling this AfD, I learned that we've also got List of Muslim Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and List of nonreligious Nobel laureates. These were all deleted ten years ago at Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), but one by one they've come back, with the exception of List of Hindu Nobel laureates, which has been WP:CSD'd multiple times, most recently by you. It seems to me that we've got clear consensus that these types of articles should exist. Would you have any objection to my reverting your deletion of this? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would. Far too much chance of BLP violations etc and communal edit warring. I find it astonishing that the others were kept and would have objected had I known - religion has nothing to do with the prizes (except perhaps the Peace Prize) and thus it is a crazy intersect. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, that AfD was weird. Most of the keeps were basically saying "well, it has been kept before so why not now?" Since when has that had anything to do with policy? OTOH, the intersect point was made by some and, I think, there is a policy regarding that somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is where Wikipedia falls apart. For most of the people in the Christian list, we have very little evidence that they actually believed in Christianity. But, hey, they were born in a Christian society so let's add them to the list of Christian nobel prize winners. Some of them will be turning in their graves!--regentspark (comment) 15:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is meaningless listcruft at it's best. ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And,, the self-vacating of the close by RSmith means that you can chime in there with your views.Cheers! ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hadn't noticed it had been relisted the day before. But, based on what I've seen so far, I would be surprised if the final result is anything different from my original close.  And, assuming that's the case, that leaves us with the situation where the community seems to think these lists are worth having, and if it's worth having them for Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc, I can't see how Hindu should be treated any differently.  As admins, it's our job to enact community decisions, and to a certain extent, enforce policy, but policy is ultimately made by the community. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have no particular agenda I'm pushing here, other than consistency. If we're going to have some of C, M, J, A, and H, we should have them all.  Or, have none of them.  Having a bunch of them, but excluding one, seems clearly wrong.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But we could say the same about articles and lists for castes yet regularly see some deleted. I suspect this group of lists may need some sort of meta-discussion in which they are all considered at once and there is some form of wider publicity given to the discussion than happens with AfD. I need to find the policy/guidance related to intersects - I know it happens with categories. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is that (as I understand it, which may not be very well), there are thousands of castes. There's a small finite number of Nobel Prize winners, and a very small finite number of religions represented by those people ("select distinct religion from people where has_nobel is true").  But, I do agree that some sort of meta-discussion with a wide participation would be good thing.   That would (hopefully) bring closure and consistency to this issue.  In theory, since I'm discussing bringing back an article that had been deleted, WP:DRV would be the right forum, but I don't think that's really the right place.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And, apologies to Spaceman, for camping out on his front lawn while he's on vacation :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, there is a finite number of castes. More to the point, perhaps, would be to see what happens if I created List of Atheist BRIT Award winners, List of Roman Catholic Victoria Cross winners, List of right-handed FIFA World Cup winners etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't care one way or another if consensus has changed, however, when I deleted the article there were at least a couple of issues where the people explicitly claimed to be atheist but were listed in the article (including one BLP if my memory serves me right). I'm happy to give way to any new consensus that's formed, also, I'm not on here enough to be able to reply in a timely manner, so please don't wait on my opinion for any change. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What to do with AFC submissions on Title Blacklist?
Hello Spiff, over the last few weeks on AFC we've had multiple attempts to submit articles on Pavan Kumar NR, a blacklisted title. The most recent one is here, but a new account (which has no other edits) and has a declared paid COI: User:Standardwikis/sandbox.

I tried looking in WPspace for some explanation of how blacklists work and how they're addressed, but all I can find is links to MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist which is just a bunch of code and not any explanation of policy. Am I missing some link or is there no page that explains how blacklisting works and what redress is available.

I guess my main questions:


 * If someone submits a draft which would be under a blacklisted title, are we supposed to send them somewhere to argue a case, or just tell them to go pound sand and not waste our time?
 * Apropos of the above, if someone submits a draft for a blacklisted title, and for whatever reason their version appears to been GNG and other relevant policies, are we supposed to not publish it because it's been blacklisted for a larger reason, unrelated to quality of article and sourcing?
 * Should there be at least a brief page WP:Title blacklist exlaining why it happens, and what, if anything a notionally well-meaning editor with a policy-compliant Sandbox (since they can't even use the title in Draftspace) should do?

Thanks for any tips on what should be done in this case. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about Blacklists but this is part of the sock farm again, he's tried many different ruses in the past and this is just one more in that list. It's not a new editor at all, it's just part of the same self promotion. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should've said "new account". But I guess my main question still holds: if someone shows up that writes a 100% legit article about Pavan Kumar, would we unlock that title and publish it in AFC, or is this supposed to be "if someone submits Topic X, no matter how kosher it looks, don't trust them"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen titles removed from the blacklist if a legit article can be created -- if I'm not mistaken there was something about a title that included "shit" that was blacklisted and I believe an admin was able to override that. Just to test my theory I tried creating (without saving) one of the now deleted titles and it seems to work, so I guess any admin could move to draft space too. However, I'd advise you to be wary of this sock farm as it's been a colossal waste of time both here and at Commons, and every time there's a new lie to deal with. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Sockpuppet investigations/Decan.reporter
You are invited to join the discussion at Sockpuppet investigations/Decan.reporter. ~ Winged Blades Godric 07:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at them earlier and I don't think they are the same, the IP clearly has a better command of the language and I also think is far away from the account, it's possible that they are friends though. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Any takes about this edit? ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh, that is weird and I didn't expect that! I'll look in again tomorrow. BTW, there's a boatload of copyvios on Commons too. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked further and it's obvious that the account and IP are just here to promote an agenda, though I think they might just be colluding off-wiki and not really the same person behind the wheel. That and the serious competence issues and filling up this place with copyvios (via Commons) is enough to block. BTW, you may want to look at Patelhime which I think may be part of Sockpuppet investigations/Rishika.dhanawade/Archive but I have to look deeper into it. cheers &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All's well that end's well:) Will be shortly checking Patelhime's case ! ~ Winged Blades Godric 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you for the block! Now, what about Commons? The Banner talk 10:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've done a mass nomination of the remaining images, we'll ahve to wait out their process there. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there is sockpuppetry/deceptive signing there too: File talk:Roquisatan.jpg. The Banner talk 10:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)