User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 84
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sergecross73. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 80 | ← | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | → | Archive 90 |
User barred from editing multiple discographies causing trouble on another
Hey again. I've just found out an editor using the range Special:Contributions/213.237.80.0/20, blocked by Ohnoitsjamie only from editing a number of music artists' pages a couple of months ago for using multiple accounts to do so, is causing trouble at Robbie Williams discography now, restoring awful formatting to the singles section, needlessly separating what is not that long a section into decades (titled "1990's", "2000's" and so on), repeating citations, and all other sorts of nonsense. Would you be able to alter the block to include this page? I reverted this earlier today and a few hours ago they returned to "restore" the edit [1]. Looks like another page they will just try the tactics that got them blocked on the others, as they've been editing the discography on-and-off with these bad edits for months now. Ss112 13:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Protected awhile ago, forgot to mention here.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Technical news
- Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.
Arbitration
- GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.
Help
Hi, I've seen you moderate and edit articles related to Music and Taylor Swift, and hence I'm contacting you. User "Nerd271", who appeared out of nowhere on Taylor Swift, has been toying with the images on the article, decorating the article, cluttering the prose with stacked citations, trimming prose excessively to the point of obnoxiousness leading to loss of details etc. And when contacted, they gave me sassy, comedic replies. And they're literally flooding the Taylor Swift talk page and my user talk page with discussions just so they could keep me busy with those. I'm tired and this is getting out of my hands. I'm exhausted. I told them to stop by giving them edit-war warnings, and they still wouldn't stop. I request your intervention. And if possible, please increase the protection level of Taylor Swift to "admin only" even if that means I can't edit on the article anymore. I'm tired of the reverts. Thank You. Ronherry (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ronherry: I pinged you because I wanted to talk to you. Those were separate issues so I created separate sections for each on the talk page. I am not attacking you personally. Goodness sake! Please calm down! Nerd271 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- The article is currently a Featured Article - the highest article quality possible on Wikipedia. While that may not mean "perfect" or "complete"...there's already a lot of perfectly good pictures in the article. It doesn't strike me as needing more pictures or different pictures. That's my two cents. Unless anyones breaking WP:3RR, I don't think there's much Admin action I should be taking yet. Please stop and hash it out on the articles talk page. It's an extremely high traffic article, so I imagine there will be other editors participating if you start a talk page discussion. It's best to work towards a WP: CONSENSUS there rather than all this reverting that will likely lead to blocks eventually. (I'm not threatening either of you, I'm just saying I've seen this a million times and that's what generally happens if the reverting doesn't stop.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Rough consensus, user disregarding guideline
Hey Serge. The user Boscaswell appears to have reverted something like four editors on Let's Go Brandon at this point, disregarding WP:BADCHARTS, which says iTunes statistics should not be cited. Two of the sources used for the iTunes statistics are also dubious WP:PRIMARY sources. Three editors (now including myself) have stated to this editor on Talk:Let's Go Brandon#iTunes that they should not be used, but they're predictably citing WP:IGNORE and claiming (at least in edit summaries) that it's an WP:NPOV issue. Despite BADCHARTS being a thing, there seems to be some sort of presumption on this user's part that everybody who follows a guideline is a Joe Biden supporter trying to deny the popularity of songs based off a chant of "fuck Joe Biden", which is ridiculous. They have explicitly said "Wikipedia is all about presenting a balanced view. Some may not like the phenomenon, but it exists" when from the looks of it, none of these editors have tried to "deny" its popularity but merely remove the iTunes stats. Two of the songs have now entered the US Hot 100, so we absolutely don't need to still be citing iTunes charts when a more thorough chart metric exists.
Anyway, if four users telling an editor and them not listening isn't forming a rough consensus against including this, I don't know what is. From their edits, this editor seems to like getting involved in hot-button political topics, and they are under the impression that selling enough to get in the top 10 of iTunes is something special in 2021. (Four different songs titled the same thing and based off the same chant is unusual, sure, but not unheard of.) Would you be able to take a look at it and see if anything's worth having a word to this user about? Thanks. Ss112 01:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've given them a warning on BADCHARTS and BRD. I'd prefer to just start with that considering how contentious and heated everything related to that article/subject currently is. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Edit Warring
Hi Sergecross73, I would like to report a user who has repeatedly edit warred on Do It. User Liftarn has repeatedly tried including Janne Suni as a songwriter on the song due to the fact it was revealed the producer Timbaland had plagiarized a synth from one of Suni’s songs. From the sources provided on the page and on Timbaland plagiarism controversy — states it was all settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. No sources state Suni was granted songwriting credits. I have asked multiple times for the user to include a source stating they were granted credits but they fail to provide a single source. User @Ss112: has also stepped in and left them a message explaining similar situations where artists plagiarize others work but aren’t granted songwriting credits. They also have left them an edit warring warning on their talk page as well. This has been getting out of hand — I do not understand why a user who has been on here for almost 20 years with almost 50K edits is acting this way. Please do something about this as there are now 2 users who have disagreed with their actions. Pillowdelight (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Serge, just dropping in to say I agree with this—if this Janne Suni musician who was apparently "plagiarised" didn't win a court case to be credited, we shouldn't be doing it for them. The user Liftarn has contributed extensively to Timbaland plagiarism controversy and appears to feel strongly that this person Timbaland "stole" from be credited, even though courts in both Finland and the US apparently dismissed the case. A US court reportedly said because the work was not registered with the US Copyright Office, "they were not entitled to bring an action in federal court". Along with perhaps a warning to Liftarn to quit this, would you be able to take a look at the wording in the lead of Timbaland plagiarism controversy? I feel that regardless of a glaring similarity but more importantly in the absence of a court ruling in their favour, it's not Wikipedia's job to decide that a song stole from another, and another editor of that page (not Liftarn) changed the lead a couple years back to declare Timbaland plagiarised this other track. WP:NPOV concern? Timbaland admitted to "sampling" the song but I'm not sure declaring "plagiarism! Theft!" ("theft" was used on the article before I reworded it) is the way to present this. Ss112 08:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that he's wrong both in documenting writing credits, and lacks a consensus to make the edit. But if he's stopped after the final warning, we can leave it at that, unless/until he does it again. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'll look at the controversy page I'm just crazy busy at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)