User talk:JBW

Hey

Hey James. I was surprised, to say the least, to see your scathing response on Gabinho's talk page. It came across as though I had insulted you outright with my reply. I was shocked to see you dismiss my message as a "non-answer" that you were already anticipating. I genuinely tried to be as thorough as possible in explaining why I issued an edit warring block in that situation, and I invested a significant amount of time in trying to be as helpful and detailed as I could in responding to your inquiry. I even invested time in providing an in-depth explanation and analysis of the edit war itself, so that you could understand the nature and type of the edit war that was going on. I assumed that if you understood the context of the slow-moving edit war, you would better understand the block. Needless to say, I was despondent to see you reduce my good faith efforts to me merely providing a "general article history" as an empty substitute for a block justification. Look, I don't know about you or Boing, but one of my primary areas of involvement is AN3—I'm pretty familiar with the community expectations and norms regarding edit warring enforcement by now. My experience in this area is what led me to execute the block as I did. Firstly, what you interpreted as a "general article history" was an attempt to bring you up to speed on the the confusing underlying dispute. I'm sorry you interpreted this as a bad thing. However, I thought it was important context in recognizing the edit war. Secondly, I referred you to the entirety of the article's history. I expected that, once you understood the context of the dispute, the long-term, slow-motion edit would be extremely obvious to you. Instead, you made the shocking statement that "there had been no edit warring". I'm at a complete loss as to how you could come to that conclusion. This editor took part in an ongoing edit war. There's literally no denying that. The entirety of the article's history is marred by a singular edit war over a singular issue. Slow-motion edit warring is edit warring. Tag team edit warring is edit warring. Users who revert are expected to use the talk page (again, "I didn't look at the talk page" is not a valid excuse if you're reverting). Users partaking in an edit war can be blocked without violating 3RR. These are all things that you didn't address at all while criticizing my block. Now, look. I'm open to dissent, and if someone disagrees with a block for a user who only reverted once, I'm open to hearing that criticism. I would have explained that disproportionate edit warring blocks are highly frowned upon by the community, and this user was blocked alongside of the other two edit warriors in the interest of fairness, in accordance with community norms. You would be free to disagree, and I would be more than happy to bow to your dissenting perspective. However, that wasn't even your criticism. Your criticism was that there was no edit warring. That's simply not true. If you had actually read my reply, you would understand that there was an edit war going on, and this user was one of the three recent editors who were continuing it. That should not be a point of contention. Your reply gave the impression that you ignored what I said, and spun it as me trying to justify an empty block. I'd be happy to hear, specifically, why you feel there was no edit warring, because I could not agree less with that. However, I'm sure you have valid points that will only help me improve. Swarm ♠ 05:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
CC: @Boing! said Zebedee: Swarm ♠ 05:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Swarm, I have to say I'm even more perplexed (and disappointed) by your response now than I was yesterday (shocked, in fact, that someone with your experience can get this so badly wrong and so completely misunderstand what people are saying to you). JamesBWatson clearly did not say there was no edit warring! Where on earth did you get that from? What he said was simply, and clearly, that Gabinho did not edit war. That's a very big difference, and I really can't understand how you can not see that. And again, the entire edit-warring history of the article is utterly irrelevant when it comes to judging whether Gabinho was edit warring. You still have not explained how this individial editor was warring - and you can not, because he was not. We simply do not block an editor because some other folk have been edit warring for ages - you were right to block those other two, because they had been edit warring, but Gabinho clearly was not. Secondly, your insistence that a warning on an article talk page is a sufficient warning before blocking someone is, well, so far away from Wikipedia's blocking policy and blocking norms that I'm amazed that you can come up with such an absurd claim. Even in such serious cases where discrectionary sanctions are in force, a sanction can not be placed on an editor unless they have previously been informed of those sanctions on their user talk page. There are two simple facts here, which you seem blind to:

1. Gabinho was not edit warring.
2. Gabinho had not been warned.

I think it's fair to say that JamesBWatson and I are among the most experienced of admins here (both with plenty of experience in reviewing unblock requests and in understanding edit warring and blocking policy), and when we are both telling you that you are wrong, don't you think you should at least listen to what we are saying and consider if perhaps we might be right? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Just an additional comment. Do you know what I expected, Swarm, after JamesBWatson's question to you at Gabinho's talk page? I was honestly expecting something along the lines of "Ah yes, I blocked three of them but it seems only two of those were edit warring, so I'll unblock this one." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: Like Boing! said Zebedee, I am perplexed by seeing such a message from an experienced administrator whom I have always thought of as a good administrator, totally missing various points and seriously misrepresenting others. Three times in your message above you claimed that I said that there had been no edit warring, and yet I never said that, I said only that there was no edit warring from this editor. Edit-warring is repeatedly reverting in the same page, it is not making a couple of edits on an article where other people have been repeatedly reverting in the same page. Gabinho had not been repeatedly reverting in the same page, that is to say Gabinho had not been edit warring. That is the central point of all this. Several other things you say are astonishing, but rather than dwell on every detail I shall just mention one of them. You said "This editor took part in an ongoing edit war. There's literally no denying that." How can you say that when two experienced administrators have denied it? Boing! said Zebedee has denied it again in his message above, and I shall deny it again: whatever anyone else may have done, Gabinho was not edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson and Boing! said Zebedee: Apologies for the delayed reply, I was out of town. To be clear, when I say, "there was no edit warring", I'm just referring to the fact that you both believe that Gabinho did not edit war at all. I understand you can see the edit war, so let's not get caught up on that. I'm just trying to address the point of contention in good faith, because you think I'm being wholly unreasonable. I hear what you're saying, that Gabinho did not edit war. I get that. I disagree. And please don't take this an attempt to lecture down to you guys. I'm not trying to be confrontational or condescending. First and foremost I just want you to understand my position on the applicability of edit warring policy here, because I've given you the impression that I've issued an arbitrary block. I disagree with the stance that you need to revert more than once in order to edit war, and that the context of this single revert is irrelevant. 3RR doesn't always apply, and when that's the case we're expected to look into and familiarize ourselves with the context of edit wars, rather than just tally up reverts. Obviously, a single revert is not normally a problem. However, it can be a problem if you're directly involving yourself a massive, ongoing, tag team edit war. If the article history directly demonstrates that a single revert was part of an ongoing tag team edit war, then we should not just ignore that context. Taking part in a tag team edit war, even with a single revert, is still edit warring, and, when necessary, the community expects us to treat tag team edit warring the same as an outright 3RR vio. Now, while I disagree with you not connecting this user's revert to the ongoing tag team edit war, this particular instance was relatively minor, that I will concede. My intention was simply to not issue unbalanced remedies, as I have been equally burned for doing just that! Perhaps in my efforts to avoid repeating that, I swung too far to the other side and fell short of considering the mitigating factors (i.e. one revert, no warning, no previous involvement), and I can agree that that is no better. I've received important perspective from this and apply it in the future, for sure. I will try to strive for fair enforcement, rather than equal enforcement. I'm sure we all agree that knowing when not to block is just as important as knowing when to block. Swarm ♠ 22:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Prabir Ghosh

Good Day James.

I just noticed that the edits I made to the aforesaid article has been vandalised. I am afraid to say that this is a repeated pattern on this page. I had inserted a section titled "Controversy" and I had provided newspaper clippings to support this section (Bengali newspaper clippings, published from Kolkata, India). This entire section has been blanked by a group of users who do not want these newspaper clippings to be published. If you search the earlier history on this article, you will notice that in the past similar attempts were made from fake IDs. One user Rahulkarmakar has put a note that says, "We are already in the process of legal action against this individual fraud members. Request you to allow us to modify the same in Wikipedia also. We have exposed this fraudulent activity in our website as mentioned below. http://www.srai.org/conspiracy/". I believe they maybe hinting towards myself by saying "this individual fraud members" and this is an absolutely false claim. The webpage link he has provided belongs to his organization of which the subject of the Wikipedia article, Prabir Ghosh, is an authority. I understand that the group is trying to protect their boss from a scandal. But I am just a non-aligned individual who feel that the biography of the person must reflect truth and not some hagiography. Neither do I have to do anything with SRAI nor am I their enemy. As a matter of fact, I do not even know these people and I just wanted to reflect the incidents that were widely published in local newspapers of that time. Furthermore, the link he provided points to an article that discusses certain legalities regarding using their trademark/logo etc. and not at all related to the controversy regarding Mr Ghosh's personal life that I had drafted. In your edit, you have mentioned, "Removing disputed content without a verifiable source. DO NOT restore this content without providing a reliable source: doing so would be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and may lead to being blocked from editing." But the newspaper clippings I provided, WERE the verifiable sources. It included headlines from at least three local Bengali dailies. I do not know what other verifiable sources one may provide. URLs are not possible as it happened almost two decades ago and we did not have the technology back then. I can forward you the original scans of those same newspaper clippings if you want. If you still feel the evidence is not enough then I may try to connect with the SRAI organization and get some sort of affidavit from them saying what I had written is truth, but this will be hard to do as I do not have any personal connection there. Please let me know what you think. Ideally, I would like to revert this article to the version I made last, i.e. 06:51, 18 September 2017‎.

@2kaibiswas: My general feeling is that you are probably telling the truth, but verification of the sources is a problem. I am not sure what would be the best way to deal with this problem. Emailing me copies of the newspaper articles would be no use, as I can't read Bengali. Perhaps it may be possible to find an independent editor who does read Bengali to translate it. I could ask an editor I know of who has much more knowledge of matters related to editing Indian articles than I have for suggestions, but I don't have any more time now. I will try to come back to this tomorrow, but if I don't get back to you within 48 hours from now I suggest you contact me again to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@2kaibiswas: I have asked for help from another editor with more experience in this area. He may or may not be able to help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@2kaibiswas: Will you email me scans of the newspaper reports? I have now contacted two editors who speak Bengali, and if you can let me have copies of the reports I can ask one or both of them to check what they say, and if they confirm that the newspaper does support the disputed content of the article then I will be happy to restore that content to the article. I ask you to use email rather than posting the scans to Wikipedia, as posting copies of newspapers to a publicly accessible web site would raise copyright concerns. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I have sent you an email. "2kaibiswas" (talk)

@2kaibiswas: A Bengali speaking editor has now looked at the newspaper cuttings, and confirmed that they do support the claim that Prabir Ghosh was removed by Bharatiya Bigyan O Yuktibadi Samiti from the post of general secretary. Feel free to restore the content to the article if you wish to. On the other hand, the hand-written note that you also sent cannot possibly be regarded as a reliable source, so that cannot be taken into account. It has been questioned whether Prabir Ghosh is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, so it is possible that it may be nominated for possible deletion at WP:AFD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks James. I have restored it to the version prior to latest vandalism."2kaibiswas" (talk)

64.150.0.0/17

• 64.150.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Sorry for dumping this on to you, but I've seen you perform a few school range blocks here and there, so would you mind evaluating the edits within this IP range and performing a long-term school range block? I know it's a very wide range, but there's been absolutely nothing but vandalism here for years and years... Thanks. 75.134.188.220 (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have instead blocked the two smaller ranges 64.150.0.0/18 and 64.150.64.0/19 and the single IP address 64.150.112.18, which as far as I can see covers all the vandalism in the range you mentioned. However, please let me know if you can see any more that I have missed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Noname new yorker and IP 24.45.225.41 are User:Sunlightman's puppet

See[1] and [2].--Outlookxp (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Outlookxp: Thanks for pointing that out to me. As far as English Wikipedia is concerned, the two accounts do not overlap in time, and I don't see anything that could be regarded as abuse of multiple accounts, so I don't think a block for sockpuppetry would be justified. However, I have blocked "Noname new yorker" for three days for other reasons, and the knowledge that Sunlightman's edits were to be considered as part of Noname new yorker's editing history was relevant to my decision to make that block, so your information has been helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Analysis sent! Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Godric on Leave: Wow! That was quick! thanks very much. I'll think about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Your response needed at WP:RFPP

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Category:Lorde. Thanks. Nihlus 16:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Funnily enough I was just reading that when i got notification of your message here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why you are being exceptionally difficult in this matter? The deletion discussion was four years ago and commented on by only two editors. You have multiple people now, including one of the people who participated in that discussion, asking someone to unprotect the page so that it can be recreated. Unprotection has nothing to do with the deletion process, and even if it did, G4 states "It excludes pages... to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". That is most certainly the case in this situation. I also strongly disagree that you or the deleting administrator should place a moratorium of sorts on the protection of the article, one that should not have been indefinitely protected to begin with. Nihlus 17:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that anyone should place a "moratorium" on the protection. I just said that I personally wasn't going to unprotect the article under present circumstances. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello James. This ip [3] is making questionable edits across multiple articles (source falsifications, pointlessly removal of sourced content from the lede and replacement them with unsourced OR contents, false/misleading edit summaries,etc.) The ip range 95.116* together with 82.113* and 89.204* is quite specific to a long-term abuser. Previous edits by old ip socks mentioned on LTA page [4][5][6]. Same ip range and location, same topics and same disrupt signs. It looks like WP:DUCK. Can temporary range-block be appropriate to avoid further disruption and sockpuppetry by the long-term abuser? Accounts using the same range with suspicious edits should also be locked. FYR @BU Rob13 and Berean Hunter: -46.147.54.204 (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately only a small minority of edits from the 95.116... range are from this disruptive editor, with far more edits which seem to be totally unrelated, such as fairly recent edits to Spoke–hub distribution paradigm, Brotli, List of Melrose Place characters, Bread roll, IEEE 802.3, and many more. This means that a range block would be unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Something strange going on with articles about Miley Cyrus songs

Hi, JamesB. I've noticed a bunch of IPs following each other around certain articles and making the same disruptive edits. See histories regarding Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song), Malibu (Miley Cyrus song), Adore You, We Can't Stop, etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Some IP addresses were already blocked when I saw this, and some of the affected articles were already protected. I have added some more blocks and protections. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Now the most active one (193.144.97.48) has requested to be unblocked, claiming to be a high school. Nothing about any school in their IP WHOIS or official site, though. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=193.144.97.48 gives the IP address as belonging to "Xunta de Galicia Conexion Centros Escolares", which Google translate renders as "Xunta de Galicia School Centers Connection". whatismyipaddress.com gives it as "Entidad Publica Empresarial Red.es", i.e. "Corporate Public Entity", which is much vaguer, but certainly consistent with its being a school IP address. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you meant to ping Skywatcher68. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Yes I did, and I realised my mistake, but as I was trying to correct it you edit-conflicted me with the above message. Oh well... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Knson

Please see User talk:Knson. This new user is continuing to make very disruptive edits with no edit summaries or discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: The editor had already been blocked by the time I saw your message, so I didn't bother to reply to it. However, having now pinged you by mistake I thought I might as well answer you. This is a very strange editor, who combines perfectly constructive editing with dubious edits and also occasionally with obvious vandalism. Since his or her editing is largely in a rather specialist area that I know little about, it is very difficult to distinguish between constructive and unconstructive editing. If you see any more of the same kind of thing after the present block expires, please feel welcome to contact me again. A longer-term block might be justified, but unfortunately the person also has an extensive history of editing from IP addresses spanning a range which also includes edits that don't seem to be from the same person, so it may be difficult to prevent further disruptive editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of this person's edits would indeed probably be ok if they were willing to engage in discussion. It's the continual editing with no edit summary and no response to comments on their talk page that causes many (but not all) of the problems. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Yes, I agree. I have posted a message to the editor's talk page asking him or her to start communicating. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Albanian Youngest branch of Indo European

Can you please explain why is this statement wrong?, as far as history goes Albanian as a family came at least a Millenia after Armenian (which is one of the latest Indo-Europeanized populations), I will be very interested in any Albanian literature/text or evidence prior to the 13th century AD. Tiwahi (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: What have literature and text have to do with it? Assuming that you read my edit summary, you will have seen that I explicitly acknowledged that Albanian was the last to appear in written records, but it is a giant step to go from there to its being the "youngest" branch, which pretty well anyone reading the article would interpret as meaning the last to come into existence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If you don't accept Albanian as the youngest branch family of Indo-European, I am curious which family do you think is the latest? (so I understand why you opposed the edits), is there a possibility Albanian existed prior to Armenian? (possibly 2nd youngest Indo-European family), there seems to be nothing pointing to an Albanian Indo-European language even as recent as Roman times (correct me if I am wrong?) Tiwahi (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the branch of Indo-european that includes Albanian had not yet become segregated from common Indo-european in Roman times? We are not talking about the existence of a language called "Albanian", we are talking about the existence of a branch of the Indo-european language family separate from other branches, which today includes the language called "Albanian". That branch certainly existed by Roman times, although lack of evidence makes it impossible to be certain whether any languages from that time of which we have knowledge was a member of the same branch. You seem to be unable to distinguish the statement that a language was not recorded until a late date from the statement that the language family which includes that language did not exist until a late date. There is no doubt whatever that Common Indo-European had ceased to exist long before Sanskrit and Greek are first recorded, let alone Albanian; it had divided into a number of subfamilies, one of which contained the ancestor of Albanian. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no branch of Indo-European that included Albanian, hence its an isolated Indo-European family. This is the general opinion, now where do Albanian starts appearing as a language, 13th century AD. I am obviously by this linguistic tree (mainstream?) [[7]]. Tiwahi (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: Are you trolling, or just obtuse? This discussion relates to an incident which stared by you saying that Albanian "is the youngest independent branch of the Indo-European language family". In the post which started this discussion on this page you referred to "Albanian as a family". In your second post here you referred to "Albanian as the youngest branch family of Indo-European". You can't now wriggle out of the nonsense that you have written by denying that Albanian is contained in a branch of Indo-European. It may be a branch which has only ever included one language, or it may have once included other languages which are now extinct (Illyrian, for example, is suggested as a possibility) but it certainly exists, and denying that it does is complete nonsense. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously I am not sure if we are on the same page, Albanian is the youngest Indo-European family that only constitutes of one language with no historic record prior to the 13th century AD. This is the mainstream linguistic opinion, I apologize if I offended you in anyway, but you can please explain why you are opposed to this? (If you know something else, educate me -seriously-) Tiwahi (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

what edits i was checking pages

i accidently did this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardon146 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mardon146: OK, we all make mistakes. Obviously, be careful! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

please dont block ip and its ranges

before you blcoked ip please know that it will impact on other users and their edting compability i was currently logged out my account when i was try to edit it says your ip has been blocked for editing can you explain why you blocked these ip