User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Nomination of 2009 Buffalo mayoral election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2009 Buffalo mayoral election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoral elections until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wow (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Strasburg GAR notification

Stephen Strasburg, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden

How did I vandalize the page of Hunter Biden? I used reliable sources. Aceusa (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Aceusa, we've gone over this before. The mother of the child is not a notable person and WP:BLP does not support its inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jane Dee Hull

On 21 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jane Dee Hull, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

2022 United States Senate election in California

Why do you keep taking out the republican primary? It is vandalism. And potential is a word that means someone who could run, and the news doesn't list them, so please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeedyShadow (talk • contribs) 15:29, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

@SpeedyShadow:, deleting WP:UNSOURCED content is not vandalism. Adding unsourced content can be a form of vandalism. Technically, every California citizen over the age of 30 by January 2023 could run in that election. If no reliable sources are talking about them as candidates, though, then we do not include them. It is unfortunate I had to protect the page to stop that edit warring so that I can get the chance to say this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

SpeedyShadow, are you editing from this account and from Speedysonic? If so, why? You cannot use WP:MULTIPLE accounts unless you have a good reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I lost my old password and the email wouldn't send so i made this one. please dont ban me. Ok about deleting it thank you. but isnt taking out the primary part not ok? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeedyShadow (talk • contribs) 16:02, April 21, 2020 (UTC)

SpeedyShadow, that's an understandable reason to have created the second account, and I won't block you for that. What about the primary? We have no idea which candidates will run in that election on either side. Harris might not run, she might be VP or Attorney General. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I was asking can you add back like the part where it says Republican Primary? and declared and potential but not any candidates. Thank you.

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your reversion of my reversion of BD2412

Regarding your insistence that my edits be tagged with the Wikipedia equivalent of a scarlet letter[1], the administrator whose edit you reinstated, BD2412, recently vowed to focus his "admin activities elsewhere"[2] in a promise to Levivich. That promise was pushed aside within a week, in order to undermine views with which BD2412 apparently disagrees. You may recall that BD2412 made the perplexing decision to block any non-admin edits to Joe Biden's presidential campaign article until after the election was over, which was shortly overruled by another administrator (Iridescent). You defended BD2412's self-reinsertion into the Joe Biden space with the argument that the tags were "Added by an admin," and therefore appropriate. I also see that you reverted this edit that had already been reverted without gaining consensus on the talk page, which may violate the policies listed at the talk page: "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours." Does this policy not apply to talk pages? Also, are admins given certain powers to tag people's edits that are not available to the common editor? Please clarify. — Sockpuppet comment of a community banned user

Any of us could have added the SPA tag. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

All the more reason why it's strange that Muboshgu pointed to the fact that BD2412 is an admin to justify it. — Sockpuppet comment

SeriousIndividuals, exactly what SPECIFICO said. What BD2412 is or is not doing on that page is irrelevant. You are an WP:SPA and that template exists for a reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither SPECIFICO or you addressed anything I asked. Will you clarify the questions I asked? Is the board where BD2412 agreed to stay away from Joe Biden articles a better place to be asking these questions? — Sockpuppet comment

@SeriousIndividuals: Per the above, tagging SPAs is regular editing, not an administrative activity. However, I can't help noticing that you have only recently begun editing Wikipedia, but appear to have started with an uncanny familiarity with Wikipedia editing. I am wondering, since you did not use this account to participate in the ANI discussion to which you referred, which account did you use for that purpose? BD2412 T 19:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out, Muboshgu pointed to the fact that you're an "admin" to justify the editing, and implying that non-admin editors can't revert you. See the contradiction? You said you would direct your admin activities elsewhere, but then Muboshgu is telling people that you can't be reverted on Joe Biden articles because you're an admin. I didn't participate in that discussion. Anybody can view it. — Sockpuppet comment

The relevant factor is not that I am an administrator, but that I am an editor with fifteen years of experience in dealing with SPAs. Let me ask you directly, though, have you edited Wikipedia from any other accounts? BD2412 T 20:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's not relevant, then why is Muboshgu using your admin status as a cudgel to intimidate me into not reverting your scarlet letter tagging and involvement in Joe Biden-related articles? In answer to your question, I edited anonymously until I created an account at the suggestion of others. I got sick of being tagged, which apparently didn't make a difference because the campaign continues. — Sockpuppet comment

I can't speak for Muboshgu's actions, but I doubt that very many people will find it plausible that you have up until now edited anonymously. Can you provide proof of this? Also, that does not specifically answer my question. Have you edited Wikipedia from any other accounts? BD2412 T 20:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

SeriousIndividuals, BD2412 is a respected member of the community here. You are right that they're being an admin is not what gives them the right to tag you as an SPA. It was easier for me to say than to say that they have 15 years experience here (since I didn't know the length of time). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So just so I have this right, there is no policy saying that I can't remove tags under my name? I don't like that and I view it as an attempt to undermine views with which BD2412 disagrees. I don't have the time to do this all day, but if I remove the tags, will you just re-add them again and keep going in circles until someone gets tired? — Sockpuppet comment

The tags properly identify you as a single-purpose account. So far as you have been able to demonstrate, you have done nothing at all in Wikipedia except to advocate in one specific topic area. If you choose to engage in an edit war over that accurate designation, that will end no differently for you than for any other SPA who so behaves. Alternately, you could make a few thousand edits improving articles on diverse topics unrelated to your issue, and then your opinions on that issue might be given some weight by readers. BD2412 T 21:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu already initiated an "edit war." He made a reversion of contested material within 24 hours. Within 10 minutes, actually. I don't want to get into an edit war with two administrators, which is why I came here to request clarification as to the policies behind tagging people's edits. I still haven't gotten an answer so I'm going to have to seek clarification elsewhere. — Sockpuppet comment

• Seems rather silly to edit war over a user essay. Take it to WP:SPI if you think there is a case. Otherwise I plan on undoing it later. PackMecEng (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: Can you clarify what it is that you plan on "undoing"? BD2412 T 20:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  @BD2412: It would be undoing Muboshgu's revert here. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  I would respectfully request that you not do that, as the tag accurately identifies an account that is doing nothing on Wikipedia but advocating with respect to one specific issue. {{Single-purpose account}} tagging is routinely used to identify such accounts. By what rationale would this information be concealed? BD2412 T 21:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  By what rationale would it be considered useful? Even the tag itself says it should not be used to prejudge someones contributions to a discussion or RFC. I see the tag and the user essay supporting it to just be a form of tag shamming and counter to a collaborative editing environment. PackMecEng (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  There are tens of thousands of uses of this tag in Wikipedia. Do you intend to remove them all? It sounds as if your objection is to a well-established process, rather than to a particular instance of the use of this process. I would suggest that if you propose to abolish the use of this tag, you start by opening a discussion at the Village Pump, rather than addressing a single instance that will quickly be restored or retagged by another editor. BD2412 T 22:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Don't be ridiculous. I plan on reverting a challenged tag. If I see others that have been challenged I may remove them as well, but I have no plans on hunting for them. PackMecEng (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  You seem to be planning to revert an edit that was already reverted back once. Please gain consensus before re-reverting. BD2412 T 22:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Onus is on the other side. PackMecEng (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  The use of SPA tags is a well-established practice, which you propose to change in one special instance. The onus is on you to gain consensus for that. Also, you asked by what rationale this would be considered useful. I'm sure that you are aware that there are many people in the world who have no interest in building an encyclopedia, but who would like to use Wikipedia to make various kinds of self-serving statements, and who try to create a false appearance of general community support for positions that serve their own individual interests. This is undoubtedly something that happens with respect to political issues more than most other kinds of issues. BD2412 T 22:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, by reverting my edit, you perpetuated an edit war rather than stop it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  That's a touch rich, don't you think? "If you shoot back, you'll be perpetuating the war instead of stopping it", said the guy who shot first. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, such is the nature of edit wars, is it not? At what point does it become an edit war? Was it my edit? Or PackMecEngs? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  On Wikipedia, the war doesn't start until the second shot is fired? I'm pretty fanatical about not removing people's talk page comments except in very clear-cut cases (obvious vandalism, WP:DENY, etc.), so I would say the "first shot" in the Great Talk:Joe Biden Edit War of April 21, 2020, was fired by the first editor to remove another editor's talk page comment, which I believe makes you the second shooter and PME the third; both participants, yet neither one instigators. But who's counting? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This SPA tagging and reverting also came up a few days ago. If the tagged user objects to being tagged, there is no good faith reason to revert it back against their will. There's also no need to tag every comment in a thread. It wasn't necessary for Muboshgu to bring up BD's status as an admin as any justification for why their added tag had any more weight than one added by a non-admin. Finally, BD's comment Alternately, you could make a few thousand edits improving articles on diverse topics unrelated to your issue, and then your opinions on that issue might be given some weight by readers. goes against the open and collaborative nature of the project, and can be safely ignored. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to tag every comment in a thread, but there are good faith reasons to revert the removal of the tag over the user's objections. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Baseball player

Hey i hope all is going well I like your baseball player articles, I just got drafted by the Redsox this year would you be able to make a biography about me on Wikipedia let me know what you can do, thank you. Baseballfan4 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Baseballfan4, well, congratulations. Even though I'm a Yankees fan. If you want to have a biography on Wikipedia, we need reliable sources that establish notability. If there's not enough for a full page, there would still have to be some to qualify for Boston Red Sox minor league players. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have a some articles written on me Baseballfan4 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Baseballfan4, such as? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming this user is also Boston4you (talk · contribs). Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Eagles247, could be, though it would be disappointing to see the use of multiple accounts. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Bill de Blasio

Dear User:Muboshgu, I notice that you reverted my edits at the article about Bill de Blasio. I actually did not mean to revert you, but my mouse clicked on the rollback button. Given that the revert occurred, I did reword the statement in light of your edit summary. Nevertheless, De Blasio's opposition to the field hospital set up by Samaritan's Purse has been noted by major publications, such as The New York Times, which you removed. I would welcome further rewording of the newly added information, but I do not believe that a wholesale revert is appropriate. If you disagree, we can open a section on the talk page of the article and invite others to comment. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I noted the reason that you removed the information and references from the article; please kindly refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Fox News. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 00:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, other publications have picked it up, but that doesn't mean it's not WP:UNDUE to mention it. I will look at what language you reinserted later. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing

Election results and endorsements are sourced correctly. You can not skew this page to match your views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysciprofessor (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Polysciprofessor, nor am I. You're copy-pasting directly from articles. That's not allowed under any circumstances. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, it looks like they re-added the text from https://www.sba-list.org/candidate/beth-van-duyne. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Remedy for the celebrity photo of Jillian Bell?

I thought I picked the right license for the photograph. How can I remedy this? Xanderox (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Xanderox, what license is that? I didn't see any Creative Commons license. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

• News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?

• In the media: Coronavirus, again and again

• Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit

• Featured content: Featured content returns

• Arbitration report: Two difficult cases

• Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night

• Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos

• Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias

• Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

• By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic

• Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon

• In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Pat Toomey

Hello, you recently protected Pat Toomey due to disruptive POV editing by an IP range at 72.86.138.xxx. Well, they're back. Just wanted to let you know. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim, I see it's been taken care of for the time being. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

European water polo championships

Hi, I got a problem with Pelmeer10. Please, this is official LEN medals table for both competition, men's and women's. You can see what I say so many times - Medals from USSR belong to Russia, and from Yugoslavia to Serbia. Check this, please

However, read this

Serbia clinches 4th title in a row, though Spain falls only in shootoutFor the first time in the history of the European Water Polo Championships, the penalty shootout decided the title and it was retained by Serbia, despite an electrifying performance of the host Spaniards. This was the Serbs’ 8th gold medal, and the 7th in the last nine editions since 2001. Croatia got rid of its demons and clinched the bronze medal after four lost matches played for the third place in the past.

So, this is the prouv what i talking about, and Pelmeer10 delete this BudvaMontenegro (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute I am not involved in. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

2018 Santa Ana mayoral election

I was going to recreate the article with many more details, like a map and more citations, but it got deleted before I had the chance to add them. Kart2401real (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kart2401real, the article you put there was basically the same exact article as was deleted by a discussion. That discussion determined that the subject is not notable. Please see WP:CSD#G4. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Stacey Abrams

There seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle on this article, the bit about her having never won a contested election. I would appreciate your comment on this matter. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Judge edit.

Jose Altuve is a fucking cheater. Aaron Judge won MVP. Jose Altuve didn't deserve MVP, so therefore Aaron Judge is MVP — Preceding unsigned comment added by GusTheBus09 (talk • contribs) 16:03, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

@GusTheBus09: like it or not (and I don't), Altuve won the AL MVP award in 2017. If you vandalize pages again, you will be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Stonecold415

Is there anything that can be done to educate or block this user from editing? I'm sure you have seen it on many of the baseball player pages (I focus on updates for indy & foreign leagues). A substantial amount of his edits are bad, whether it's not following the proper MOS (one sentence subsections), adding unsourced content, or more recently, creating player pages for indy league players that clearly violate WP:Notability. Like this one. I'm getting really sick of having to constantly track his edits and revert most of them - especially for the pages I follow closely. I've pointed this out before on his talk page and so have you, but he doesn't seem to be changing his ways at all.

I get that in some cases, he's adding more information to some of the player pages and thus keeping things updated. But in most cases he's just adding content verbatim from that player's MiLB or Baseball Reference page in one-to-two sentence subsections without sourcing anything. I really don't think those are productive edits.

Just wanted to ask if you'd been seeing the same and if you had any suggestions for dealing with this. He's been an active user since 2018, but it's just frustrating to have to continually babysit him and revert all of his edits.

Thanks for your time and appreciate your hard work! Pozzi.c (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Pozzi.c, yes, I am aware of what you are talking about. It may be time to elevate the situation to an appropriate noticeboard, like WP:AN/I, to get consensus for whether or not this editor should have restrictions placed on them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Bias against mainstream media

Muboshgu, you accused me of having bias against mainstream media.[3] I stated that "mainstream media are often not RS", and I believe that the media's treatment of the Tara Reade story will serve as a notable example where the mainstream media has not been reliable.[4] The Columbia Journalism Review notes that the story "struggled for traction in the mainstream media",[5] and links to The Guardian story, "Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden?" My opinion is based on my interpretation of what the sources say. Please take back what you said about my bias. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, your opinion is your personal bias. It's okay to acknowledge that. We all have our biases. You are looking at what the CJR says and the question the Guardian has asked and come down on the side of the MSM not doing its job, and that's but one interpretation of the situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please take back your use of the word "bias", which I interpret to mean "prejudice", as in "the mainstream media demonstrated bias against Tara Reade". Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I believe that when you say things like "the mainstream media demonstrated bias against Tara Reade", that proves my point. That isn't just random words you put together but your opinion, correct? We go with what the reliable sources do, not criticize them for how we perceive them to have failed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, "bias" and "prejudice" are not the same thing, and I am not implying you are prejudiced. Biases that are not checked can, though, become prejudices, and we all have to be aware of the possibility of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to see how you're speaking in good faith when you don't acknowledge the usual meaning of your words. When you say that you're noting my bias against the mainstream media, that doesn't sound like you're just acknowledging my evidence-based opinion. "Bias" may not be the same as "prejudice", but it is an "Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair." Please take back your use of the word.[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, perhaps I have not been clear enough in the terminology? Bias is human. Prejudice is acting upon that bias. You believe the MSM is not giving proper weight to the story, rather than acknowledge that her story has been inconsistent and that might be the reason it hasn't gotten as much press as you think it should get. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, sorry to disappoint. I do not think we are seeing eye to eye on what we are talking about here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I see things very clearly, and your overall behavior which I have witnessed recently has disappointed me. I expect better from administrators. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I'm not some robot. I'm a human with my own biases. And I don't serve as an administrator in the post-1932 U.S. politics realm, except in obvious cases of vandalism that require a block or page protection. I don't know what you expect. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

For starters, I expect you to not only say things that benefit yourself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I don't take your meaning on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You're arguing in one direction, the direction that benefits you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This comment does not make sense. The project as a whole benefits from distinguishing reliable sources from unreliable ones, based on the track record of sources in vetting their content. The fact that a generally reliable news source may be scooped by others has no bearing on its reliability. However, one of the standards of accurate journalism is the fullest possible investigation of stories before reporting them. It's not our role as an encyclopedia to guess at the internal processes of news outlets. BD2412 T 00:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

From 30,000 feet, Kolya Butternut, it looks as if you have some underlying concerns that remain unstated. When you say "I'm disappointed in you" "things that benefit yourself" etc.-- there's nothing in this thread that really relates to those words,which do however suggest a profound issue that remains unsaid. I wonder whether you might try to state your frustration in entirely different terms? Is there some alternative approach that might be difficult but would be clearer and possibly would elicit get responses from other editors that you'd find more constructive, or at least less opaque. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It might seem opaque to you because this doesn't concern you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's pretty clear—some of us have been around long enough to have substantial experience with editors seeking to present a conspiratorial view as an encyclopedic narrative. What is unclear is what you mean by "benefit". Are you proposing that Muboshgu gains some individual benefit from supporting the view substantially held by the community with respect to what sources are reliable? BD2412 T 01:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm talking about conduct, not content.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No, your first post was directly related to the ultimate issue of what constitutes reliable sources with respect to some very specific content. You appear to assert that "the media" is acting as a single-minded entity with respect to content covered in a particular article or set of articles. BD2412 T 02:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sigh.  I can't make you see something that you don't want to see.  Conduct has context, the context here is not terribly important.  You're misinterpreting what I'm saying and what I believe.  But again, this doesn't concern you.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you mean about my "conduct" "benefiting" me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel like you have a bias in favor of yourself at the expense of the truth (as most people do, however). Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, Kolya Butternut, this is getting a bit much. As an uninvolved admin in the AP area, comments such as: it's hard to see how you're speaking in good faith [etc.] are a concern to me. Doubting the good faith of editors in good standing is a bit of a non-starter. El_C 16:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. Do you mind subjecting yourself to patrolling Joe Biden related articles for the next six months? I'll give you all of the barnstars if you do.

My editing in Wikipedia articles is about the subjects of the articles, I do not appear in any of them so I'm still befuddled by the comment. Doesn't every person have a "bias in favor of [themselves]" in life? How exactly is it "at the expense of the truth"? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, sounds like fun-in-the-sun! I'm not sure what I'd do with that much excitement, though. El_C 16:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, ha! Hillary-related articles became a mess in 2016. It may be just as bad, if not worse, this year. You're a quality admin without bias in this area. Maybe we need to recruit a few more. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Muboshgu. Certainly, I'll do what I can to help. El_C 16:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, El_C, but that's how I feel. I suppose I could have said "It's hard to see how what you're saying is honest..." That way the focus is on the behavior rather than the individual, and allows for the possibility that any possible dishonesty may be unintentional. That being said, I do not appreciate you joining the conversation by what I feel is tone-policing my grievance. Muboshgu, I think you might have been unintentionally interpreting my words pedantically.  I am saying I feel like you may have taken actions influenced by bias at the expense of the truth. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

And to clarify yet again, I am not discussing article content. Perhaps I'll just leave it with a simple request: please make an effort to demonstrate more cognitive empathy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I am alerting you that you are skirting the line between what are legitimate queries and what is otherwise. I think my congnitive empathy is just fine. But I'm asking you to please do better. El_C 16:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No, El_C, I have not judged your cognitive empathy; I have asked Muboshgu, and now I am asking you, to please demonstrate it. Twice now you have inserted yourself into my conversation to alert me of my word choices while giving no words to the content of my communications. Regardless of whether you find my grievance to have merit, I have a valid experience, as we all do. In the future please show that you are understanding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, this is becoming tendentious. Please leave Muboshgu in peace and just move on. Whatever point you had has either been advanced, or not, but continuing with these exchanges has become inappropriate. El_C 17:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this exchange has become tendentious, but I am disappointed that you continue to engage in the same behavior about which I have complained, and you do not take responsibility for your own part here. Good day. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: the root of the problem here is that you are making cryptic accusatory pronouncements. To the outside observer, it certainly seems that you are saying that there is a secret "truth" that the media as a whole is conspiring to cover up, and that an editor's agreement with our existing policies defining reliable sources is somehow benefiting from this. An attack wrapped in riddles is still an attack. Speak plainly. I'm beginning to doubt your ability to do so. BD2412 T 17:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I also find your conduct here tendentious. This makes the fourth administrator who finds your behavior troubling. I would truly recommend that you modify how you interact with others. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, I think the root of the problem is that you're not hearing me. As I have repeatedly stated, I am not discussing content. And I attempted to put the focus on the simple concept of "cognitive empathy". My grievance is over conduct and personality conflicts which are commonplace on Wikipedia. Please don't project conspiracy theories onto me. If you'd like to continue this conversation on your talk page or mine, please do, but we're not talking about the same thing.

78.26I, am attempting to extricate myself from this discussion, so please do not make any more comments about my behavior on this talk page where I will not have the opportunity to respond. I am hearing a fourth administrator express concerns about my conduct, and a fourth administrator not communicate understanding of the content of my concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
3		Earl Caldwell (talk)	Add sources
31,428		Joe Biden (talk)	Add sources
19,314		Roman Polanski (talk)	Add sources
14,127		Brian Kemp (talk)	Add sources
431		Johnny Isakson (talk)	Add sources
1,466		Albany, Georgia (talk)	Add sources
185		P-Funk (talk)	Cleanup
413		Jim Webb (talk)	Cleanup
104		2018 New Hampshire gubernatorial election (talk)	Cleanup
21,176		2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland (talk)	Expand
90		Felicia Gallant (talk)	Expand
2,041		2018 Georgia gubernatorial election (talk)	Expand
30,769		Gretchen Whitmer (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
444		Juanita Broaddrick (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
13,527		Republican Party (United States) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
774		2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Asia (talk)	Merge
28,063		2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra (talk)	Merge
1,918		Doxing (talk)	Merge
89		Florida Democratic Party (talk)	Wikify
3		Chris Erwin (talk)	Wikify
657		Wayland (display server protocol) (talk)	Wikify
3		Alexander Kalichuk (talk)	Orphan
36		Administrative divisions of Madras Presidency (talk)	Orphan
4		Aisha Fofana Ibrahim (talk)	Orphan
2,650		Biden family (talk)	Stub
211		Orlando McDaniel (talk)	Stub
5		Ronald Waters (talk)	Stub
5,379		Planet of the Humans (talk)	Stub
57		Bob Trammell (talk)	Stub
32		Christ Church (Georgetown, Washington, D.C.) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)