Help desk
< April 8	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 9

Dashes

Is it correct to insert the dashes detached from the words, or attached? I have sometimes seen them attached, even on very important American pages, and have always left them attached when I found them that way, believing it to be correct. Examples (they are made up): "United States of America–in 2009–"; and "United States of America – whose Constitution was completed in September 1787 –". JackkBrown (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DASH

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the width of the dash. An em dash is unspaced, an en dash has a space on each side. See WP:DASH for the details. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma: I'm referring to the wide dashes (this: –, not this: -). Example: "with the aid of Bishop Zeferino González y Díaz Tuñón founded the Institute of Adorers of the Blessed Sacrament and Daughters of Mary Immaculate – this would be the origin of the order that she and her sister would establish not long after. JackkBrown (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are em dashes. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Trappist's succinct recommendation. It's not clear what Random's "those" refers back to. Anyway, "-" is not a dash at all (it's a hyphen); "–" is an en dash, and "—" is an em dash. (And there are also other graphemes that are realized as simple horizontal lines.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to wide dashes. But looking at what @JackkBrown called "wide dashes", I think that they are actually en dashes as opposed to hyphens and not em dashes as opposed to en dashes. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens, en dashes, em dashes, minus signs... there are too many. I think that I know the correct use of (some of) them, but only one is easy to insert from a computer, tablet, or cell phone US keyboard. Sigh. First world problems. David10244 (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family

ITALICS help please: In the Roger Lupton section of this page - ref number 16 - please put the "Dictionary of National..." in italics - I failed when trying. It's true that all books should be in italics isn't it? Thanks in advance 175.38.42.62 (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is in italics. Since you used a template Wikipedia took care of the formatting. Or am I missing something? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template : Kotobank

Template:Kotobank is broken.....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it broken? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't edit Draft Talk from mobile

I often edit from my Android Samsung mobile phone, as well as from my PC. I find that on my phone I cannot edit various talk pages other than article talk or user talk. This has been the case for some months; I raised it as a problem, I think in a zoom chat, and was asked for screenshots. Today I have at last discovered how to get a screenshot on this phone. So ...

I want to edit Draft talk:Honest History (magazine). If I use the "reply" link, I get a red box above my input saying "invalid response from server". If I click "read as wiki page" and do an ordinary edit (not VE), I get a red box saying "Error, something unexpected happened upon loading the preview. Please close and try again."

What is happening here? Can I fix it? Or are mobile editors considered to be an underclass who don't need access to backstage areas like Draft Talk? PamD 05:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it sounds like a technical issue, I don't know if anyone here will be able to help you. You can try the MediaWiki Support Desk or make a bug report at MediaWiki. The chances of getting help may be higher there. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Editors who edit using a mobile device are still first-class editors. If you are using a browser, and not the mobile app, try clicking on the small link labeled "Desktop" at the bottom of all (most?) pages. The desktop view works pretty well on modern cell phones, according to many editors. David10244 (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 It works for most pages, but not for Draft Talk! PamD 08:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Oops. Sorry... Maybe you are in an underclass... David10244 (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244 That's my suspicion: someone somewhere thinks that the plebs who edit on mobile don't need to be meddling with arcana such as Draft Talk pages! PamD 08:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous! No-one cares enough about mobile editors to discriminate against them.^[Humor] I wouldn't be surprised if this was something the right person could fix in five minutes. On the other hand neither would I be completely shocked if it turned out to be a case of "we built this thing by committee, draft talk works completely different than the rest of Wikipedia, resolving this would require to cut into the heart of Wikipedia." Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Hi, I'm a software developer working on discussion tools, I found this thread from a reference at m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Draft/Product & Technology#c-Shushugah-20230410184300-DLynch_(WMF)-20230403152500.

Unfortunately I can't reproduce the problems with replying on that page (I edited it: [1] I hope no one minds). It seems that at least some other people are able to edit them on mobile as well: [2]. I have no idea what could be causing the problems for you.

I recognize the error message "invalid response from server", and it should be only generated when the server indeed fails so badly that it doesn't even produce a valid error response [3]. However, it can also happen when something between you and the WMF servers is mucking with the response. This could be a browser extension reformatting or blocking the responses, some kind of "safe browsing" / internet filtering feature in your router or ISP, a corporate authentication proxy, or something else along these lines. Is there any chance you're using anything like this? Matma Rex talk 19:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matma Rex Thanks for taking this up. If it was a problem with my router, ISP, device, or anything, it would be surprising that I can edit ordinary talk pages (article or user) but not Draft Talk, surely? PamD 19:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the plot thickens. I see that a couple of days ago I managed a Draft Talk page edit from my mobile: this one. But I have certainly had this kind of a "can't edit" situation before. Will try and take screenshots again next time it happens and see if I can work out a pattern. Mobile editing tends to be a hit-and-miss business, unpredictable which version of a page will appear each time and how easy it will be to edit. PamD 20:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be surprising, but it wouldn't be the weirdest thing I've ever seen. It could even be a misconfigured Adblock rule or something. (I've once had an issue where I couldn't see some images on Wikipedia, and it turned out to be because their internal file names are hexadecimal hashes, and some of them contain the sequence /ad/.)

Feel free to ping me if you discover anything new. Matma Rex talk 20:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Track record

Hi I'm back and I wanted to ask, how long do I have to be on Wikipedia to build a track record? Is two months okay? I'm asking because I want to use the AutoWikiBrowser and I was rejected because I was in Wikipedia for too short a time to build a track record. Thanks in advance. Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 06:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As a general rule, only users with more than 250 non-automated mainspace edits or 500 total mainspace edits will be registered." (Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Using this software) Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask on the talk page of the project for more information or directly approach the user who rejected your request. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dancing Dollar, there's no absolute rule, but because the tool can be used for vandalism purposes, other editors like to see someone who has not only made numerous productive edits but has been here for long enough for us to trust that they won't misuse the tool either intentionally or out of unfamiliarity with policy. The editor who declined said "Not done. you have a fair few mainspace edits, but you've only been here for a month; it's too short a period for you to have built a track record; please continue editing and come back in a bit." Valereee (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dancing Dollar So, according to the editor who declined your request, the answer to your "how long" question is "a bit". :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist. David10244 (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you just hate it when people use non-SI units?^[Humor] I couldn't resist either. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! David10244 (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hotcat

Dancing Dollar, for at least some of your edits, you may want to look at Wikipedia:HotCat. Also, I'd reach out to the user who rejected your request. I use AWB on an irregular basis, but I have cleaned up some *massive* areas with in the past. As was mentioned, the amount of vandalism that can be done with AWB is *really* significant. And I'd reach out to the person who said "back in a bit"...Naraht (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

altering images already in Wikimedia

Can one alter or improve an image already uploaded (by another user) to wikimedia? To, for example, improve the contrast, remove scratches, remove a colour cast, crop the image down? If so, how? Do I need the copyright-holder's permission? Do I need to re-upload the image or can my 'improved' version be incorporated into the image's original file page? ErrolCalendar (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ErrolCalendar. Yes, absolutely. This is considered a derivative work, and you should leave the original file alone. Download that file, modify it as you see fit, and upload it, identifying and attributing the original file as your source. If the original image is properly licensed or in the public domain, you do not need anybody's permission. If you happen to stumble across an improperly licensed file, then all bets are off and everying may end up deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast and clear reply ErrolCalendar (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ErrolCalendar, Cullen328, it is routine to download an image from Commons, edit it (to remove a scratch, correct an error, adjust the colour balance, etc.), and re-upload it. This is like editing an article. If others disagree, your edit can be reverted. For examples, see the edit histories of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Justinian555AD.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kernel_Machine.svg.

But in my experience, if I make a new version of an image at Commons (maybe to show the new boundaries of a country after a boundary change) and upload it as a derived work, it's very likely to be deleted as a copyright violation. There are some examples at my talk page on Commons. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrolCalendar It is worth mentioning that there is a good tool to crop images on Commons, which means you don't have to download the file and re-upload it. The convention is not to overwrite the original but to save the cropped version with an obviously related filename. See Commons:File:Vanessa Branson MB 2016 (cropped).png for an example where I did that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taraxacum albidum

Another alternative to cropping is just to display a "detail" or cropped region of a Commons image, as seen to the right. Maproom (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of place image?

Not sure if this problem is vandalism or a bug, thought I would try here first. On the iOS mobile app version of Wikipedia I see an image of a house fly as the lead image at Sequential manual transmission, tapping on the image links to the correct animation of a gearbox file. I took a screenshot and uploaded it to Commons at File:Fly gearbox article.png. The text 'Consumption of feces' also appears, this may be what the fly is doing!

I see it on iPad and iPhone but not on the PC (using Firefox), I have checked the wiki text and history of the article and can't see any obvious vandalism. I've cleared the cache of the article, images and the mobile app, I've also performed a null edit on the article, no change. Looked at some of the redirects that link to this article but couldn't see any problem there. Have not seen a problem like this before though I don't use the mobile app version often. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think I am some way to solving it, this edit to Template:Automotive transmissions was vandalism, user was blocked. Coprophagia was the clue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A live edit by myself to the template plus purging appears to have fixed the problem, the fly image appeared in all the articles where the template was transcluded. The template does not appear in the mobile version of the article though it must be reading the coding. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Around 20 templates were vandalised, all have been reverted but the vandalism remains in articles using these templates which have not been edited since 31 March. Perhaps an administrator can purge them with a tool? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page Draft Disappeared

Hello, I tried to publish a new page I created but got an error message and now the article seems to be deleted. All the work I did on it is gone. Help please? Thanks. MizEmmaGoldman (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MizEmmaGoldman Other than your post here, your account has no contributions, deleted or otherwise. What is the name of the draft article you were working on? Did you create it before creating this account? 331dot (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to link articles in different Wikipedias?

How can I add a link to cs:Machův vlnostroj to the list of other languages in Pendulum wave, and vice versa? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it: just enter "en" and "pendulum wave" under Wikipedia on http://wikidata.org/wiki/Q18746151#sitelinks-wikipedia . Anything else I need to do? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cmglee, I would suggest merging the Wikidata items linked to the two articles, see d:Help:Merge. It is important to check the two articles are about the same subject before doing this. TSventon (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was done with an edit here to WikiData. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my own understanding, is this something whatever bot would normally come through and do eventually, or is this an unusual case? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I believe that a bot will create a new Wikidata item for a new article like Pendulum wave, but it won't know if there is an existing item linked to another Wikipedia. If there are articles on en and another Wikipedias with duplicate Wikidata items it is fauirly easy to merge the items, otherwise you can ask here. TSventon (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TS. The reason I asked is that, for instance yesterday, Marie Burde was connected to the German article of the same name within hours, and I was thinking maybe in this case, since the article names are different, that was the problem. Valereee (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That link was added by an IP editor. Articles with the same name are probably more likely to be linked quickly than articles with different names. TSventon (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Valereee (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, @Lee Vilenski, @TSventon and @Valereee. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations page

It's always heartwarming to see the advancements people create in our perennial search for the elusive concept perfection. Recently however, our forward-looking providers of knowledge have outdone themselves and turned my day into a perennial game of hide-and-seek when I visit Wikipedia. Can anyone explain to me where the citations page is located and how we can access it? Steve G. 2601:647:4700:CD70:2D36:259F:D828:6F00 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Steve, sorry for your frustration...not sure what you mean by 'citations page'? Valereee (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"citations page" could mean many things but you apparently refer to something which changed location recently so I guess it's "Cite this page". It's now in a dropdown menu on "Tools" near the top right of pages. If you create a free account and log in then you can select the old interface "Vector legacy" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they might mean that thing where references aren't defined on the pages they are used on, but somewhere else where nobody can find them to fix errors in them. Can't remember what it's called, but it's a comparatively recent "improvement" that I've noticed in a few articles. It's horrible. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should redirect pages be categorized?

In cleaning up a particular category I found that it included a redirect page. The page it redirects to is also in the category. Is it correct that redirect pages should not be categorized? Ike9898 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a 27-page PDF to my draft article?

I've successfully added as a citation the paywalled "Taylor & Francis Online" source for the 27-page article. How do I add the non-paywalled PDF for the same article as it appears in the "International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence"? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Was Kisevalter Nash? (talk • contribs) 18:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested before that questions specific to this article should in the first instance be raised on Draft talk:Tennent H. "Pete" Bagley. Do you have a link for the "International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence" version of the PDF, or failing that for the journal? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Was Kisevalter Nash? You don't need to post the PDF; I believe you need to cite the "International Journal" page. Posting it would be a copyright violation. I think there us a "cite pdf" template, but "cite web" should work too. I could be wrong, but I don't think it matters that the target of the link is formatted as a PDF. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. David10244 (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244: – I think that Was Kisevalter Nash? realises that, he has correctly added as a citation the paywalled "Taylor & Francis Online" source but would prefer to cite a non-paywalled version so that readers can read the original. FYI: You're quite correct that posting the actual PDF would be a copvio, and you're also correct that PDFs are totally acceptable as the targets of a citation. As regards which template to use, Was Kisevalter Nash? has already used the {{citation}} template which covers all uses. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin of Sheffield Thanks for that; I'm still learning. David10244 (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen

The order of the monuments is not well understood and it is not clear which ones correspond to which in the photos (for information: I left the order unchanged; I only corrected the punctuation and explained the order better, but it is the same order: Copenhagen. JackkBrown (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, which sections are you asking about? I have changed your external links to wikilinks. TSventon (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: initial part. JackkBrown (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown:, if you mean the infobox, I have removed Amalienborg as there was no image. If you click on the images you can see what each one is. TSventon (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I live near Copenhagen. The current version is correct but as mentioned, you can just click the images. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to change an image?

Hi, my husband has a page in wikipedia and it has his photo that we would like to change. He never created that page and did not upload the existing image. how do we change it? Erush77 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Erush77. It is normal that your husband had no part in creating the Wikipedia article about him: we strongly discourage writing about yourself, as it is likely to be difficult both to write neutrally, and to restrict yourself to material that is in a published source.

You may suggest changes to the article, but because of your conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly, but should make edit requests on the article's talk page.

If you wish to propose a new photo, as long as you own the copyright for the photo (most easily, if you took it yourself), then you may upload it to Wikipedia Commons: see Help:upload. If you did not take the picture yourself, then it is likely that the copyright belongs to the photographer, and only they can license it suitably (see donating copyright materials.

Once the picture has been uploaded, then you can make an edit request that the new picture be used to replace the existing one. An uninvolved editor will at some point look at your request, and if they agree that the new photo is an improvement, they will put it into the article. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your reply! I tried to upload but it says that I do not have the permission to do so. I wish it wasn't this complicated. I'm not really sure what to do. Erush77 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Erush77, I forgot that your account needed to be autoconfirmed to do this - once you've been here for four days and made ten edits, you will be able to do this.

You used to be able to upload to Commons even if you weren't autoconfirmed, but I'm not sure if that option is still available - you could give it a try at c:Special:UploadWizard.

Failing that, you can leave a request at WP:Files for upload. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CollinFine. I was actually able to upload an image but I can't figure out how to change the original image with mine. Erush77 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Erush77: As ColinFine said above, "because of your conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly, but should make edit requests on the article's talk page." This includes changing the image. An alternative is to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard, which you might find more user friendly. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Erush77 I know why you said "my husband has a page in wikipedia"; that's the usual language. But, as a gentle reminder, around here we say "Wikipedia has an article about my husband" instead. That gives the right frame of reference. I see you are getting help on the image questions. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the insert section for editing pages? I need to insert an Infobox, but the option simply does not exist

Where is the insert section for editing pages? I need to insert an Infobox, but the option simply does not exist PBnJGuitarist23 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PBnJGuitarist23: I see you have now inserted Template:Infobox book using the source editor.[4] Infoboxes are a type of template so in VisualEditor you could choose "Insert", "Template", and enter "infobox book" in the search field. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "the insert section". You simply edit the article . If you use source editing, you insert the appropriate "infobox" template in the source with the required articles: it is easiest to do this by copying the source from another article on a similar subject, and then changing the parameters.

If you use Visual Editor, see Help:VisualEditor#Editing templates. ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the right forum to discuss whether or not fear of retaliation is justifies a WP:SOCKLEGIT for privacy reasons?

What's the right place to discuss whether the use of a Wikipedia:ALTACC for privacy reasons is justified in a particular case due to fear of reprisal from the article's subject?

To make this more concrete: I consider my use of this sock account to be legitimate. However, this legitimacy is being challenged in a sock puppet investigation in which I am listed as a suspected sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobeortobebetter

This is the argument brought forward by the user reporting:

"Both Tobeortobebetter and AncientWalrus claim to need to use "legit" sockpuppet accounts to edit the article out of fear of retaliation from GISAID, which is not reasonable given the limited organizational scope of GISAID, unless they are presently employees or data clients of GISAID, which would raise a WP:COI."

On a talk page before filing the SPI, they argued:

"...with the excuse that they fear retaliation from the article subject (which is far, far down the list of prospectively retaliatory article subjects about whom criticism has been leveled in Wikipedia."

I'm wondering where the best place is to now discuss whether the use of a privacy sock is legit in this case or not.

I could raise it on the SPI, but on SPI's one is supposed to be concise and the question of the legitimacy is only tangentially related to the SPI.

Is there an appropriate venue where one can get advice whether or not a particular situation justifies use of a sock for privacy/reprisal reasons? I couldn't find any guidance on what is a "reasonable" fear of retaliation. The policy only states:

Privacy: A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions. If you are considering using an alternative account under this provision, please read the notification section below.

Adding a few tags so this is easier to find for future editors with the same question (I did quite a thorough archive search and such tags were most helpful): WP:GOODSOCK WP:VALIDALT WP:SOCKLEGIT WP:SOCK WP:SOCK#LEGIT

Thank you! AncientWalrus (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really to love to hear some thoughts from more experienced users. Even a simple statement "I'm not aware of an explicitly proscribed venue for this matter, I would raise it on XYZ" would be hugely appreciated. I hope it's ok to ping three of you who've been recently active on this page, given this is related to an active SPI and hence somewhat time sensitive: @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Maproom @Random person no 362478479 AncientWalrus (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AncientWalrus I think the best way forward is to go through the arbitration committee. See also:

"Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny." WP:ALTACCN Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt response, very appreciated!

I have already contacted Arbcom by email from my master.

It seems that this particular legitimate reason is used rather rarely, or at least discussed rarely on help pages. Arbcom seems right now, but since arbcom is private there's no trace and hence no way to check _as a prospective user thinking about this justification_ whether the justification is considered legitimate in their circumstances.

I thought there was plenty of evidence in reliable secondary sources of reprisal from the organisation in question - hence I'm a bit surprised that the legitimacy is questioned by an admin. Would be good to get clarification, some examples for precedent - because the policy is very concise and seems to allow varied interpretations.

What would be the right place to start a discussion for this policy to become more concrete and easier to apply? The talk page of the relevant policy? The village pump? I don't have much "meta" wiki experience, hence my questions. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think privacy is exactly the reason why this should be done via Arbcom. It's the only way to address the question of which accounts are linked without making it public, thereby defeating its purpose. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! However, the problem isn't so much that I can't show/prove which accounts are linked in this case. It's more about the SPI reporter's questioning of the legitimacy in this particular case. At least that's the part I'm not clear about yet. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The expectation for socks which you maintain for privacy is that the two accounts do not overlap with regards to editing, and that you are not using either account nefarious purposes, such as vandalizing with one and keeping the other clean. What that means is that your two accounts should not be editing the same articles, or commenting on the same discussions, or anything like that. If you use one account in a discussion, log into the other account, then comment on the same discussion, that's against the rules. --Jayron 32 14:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppetry page would probably be the best place to look/ask for more information on when an alt-account is legitimate. If I understand the situation correctly the perceived threat is being locked out of an important database. I think it is hard to evaluate how real that threat is. You have pointed to the fact that others have similar fears when it comes to publicly criticising the organisation and that one person has expressed their believe that they have been locked out because they criticised the org. I think that makes a prima facie strong argument for the need for anonymity. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I'd expect to see such a discussion start at WT:SOCK. It's not the busiest of pages, so a 'more meta' followup might appear at WP:VPP. I'm not sure there's much to discuss tbh. We've had users hide behind this policy before for illegitimate reasons, so expect some cynicism and little change to the policy wording, and do please be transparent about any conflicts of interest, if there are any, to the extent possible. But for the record, you don't see me reaching for the block button, and unless there's some solid connection between the accounts within the SPI, I'd be tempted to throw it out. What I think the SPI is reaching for is a statement about whether the named accounts are connected, rather than anything to do with the original accounts. If you don't know who the other accounts are, just say so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32 I do understand that very well and that's exactly what I'm doing - no overlap. And I don't think this account can be considered to be vandalizing either (at least I've not been told) - trying my best. The issue at hand is not about what you're allowed to do if you have legitimate reasons. The question is to delineate under which circumstances privacy/fear or reprisal is a legitimate reason, and under which circumstances it is not. The reporting admin doesn't seem to argue that the two socks that are claiming to be legitimate are behaving in illegitimate ways. No, the reporting admin is claiming that the basis of the justification is invalid. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no overlap, then on what basis did someone accuse you of misusing a secondary account? --Jayron 32 15:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could mean "overlap" in two ways, I'm not quite sure which. While there is no overlap between my master (not accused) and my sock (this account) there is of course overlap between this account and the other accused accounts. And the alleged master is using the same reason (fear of reprisal) as justification for using a legitimate sock as I am.

I still don't understand why this admin is making an accusation that the justification of fear of reprisal is invalid in this case which they really did, these are their words:

"Both Tobeortobebetter and AncientWalrus claim to need to use "legit" sockpuppet accounts to edit the article out of fear of retaliation from GISAID, which is not reasonable given the limited organizational scope of GISAID, unless they are presently employees or data clients of GISAID, which would raise a WP:COI."

"...with the excuse that they fear retaliation from the article subject (which is far, far down the list of prospectively retaliatory article subjects about whom criticism has been leveled in Wikipedia."

If you are interested in the full picture, I have just replied on the SPI itself. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a rabbit hole between this discussion, the page in question, and the SPI. I think privacy should always be given top priority. I also think you need to understand how it looks from Wikipedia's point of view and why an admin filed an SPI. New accounts who claim to be unrelated all come to Wikipedia to edit the same topic, all claiming to be a permissible use of alternative accounts. It gives an impression of SPI or at least potentially WP:MEAT users who may be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not saying that is the case, but it does give the impression of it. I guess my question would be if you are using AncientWalrus in a permissible fashion to edit GISAID because of fear of retaliation, why are you continuing to edit other topics with that account instead of using your actual account? Since those topics are not connected to GISAID (as far as I can see), I don't see why using this account for anything other than GISAID (the claimed permission purpose) is warranted. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with admin

I am having an issue with a harassing admin and I need help. I created a page called Draft:Inertial Labs and published the page. I have a paid editor disclosure on my page.. After it was published for about 4 days and several experienced editors worked on the page, removing thousands of characters of advertorial language, Justlettersandnumbers move the page back to draft and in the notes he put that it was because it was undisclosed paid editing and that the article was advertorial. I replied to his message asking why he labeled it undisclosed paid when I had a disclosure on my page and I asked what about the article was still advertorial that he felt the need to draft the article after several editors had already worked on it. Ive complied with everything he has asked and he won't tell me how to fix the article or what he found advertorial... Somehow this has de-escalated to the point where he is blocking me for undisclosed paid editing when that isn't the case ... I don't know how admins can use the wrong reasons they admit didnt happen as an excuse to block editors..? Any help or contact or a resolution would be appreciated.UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your talk page. The admin isn't harassing you. There's a reason paid editing is strongly discouraged. It's not easy money. Read lots of help pages. You don't seem to have read civility for example, otherwise you wouldn't accuse the admin of harassment. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can you block me with a tag that says undisclosed paid editing when by his own admission the tags are there? I can't imagine if I wouldn't be able to link to a page where that is strictly forbidden. All I have been asking him is what he found advertorial? BoyTheKingCanDance remove thousands of characters of advertorial language and unreferenced material, then left the article published. He approves the 3rd most pages of any admin/editor on this platform. If justlettersandnumbers is moving the page under the guise that it is advertorial, after another editor has done a ton of editing, I would think I would be able to ask 1) what he still finds advertorial and 2) how to bring it into compliance from his opinion since he was the one who moved it and put advertorial in the notes. I am tired of this requirement of being subservient to editors who are editing fast just to pad stats and can't explain their actions.. Then chose to retaliate rather than explain or admit they didnt really do the required due diligence. It is a blatant abuse which senior editors do to newer editors and it is wrong. He never once after I asked 3x explained that, instead he decided to try and blow the whole unpaid editing thing out of proportion, focus on it and block me rather than just answer what on the page he still finds advertorial. UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't try to read other people's mind, so I can't tell you what in the article other editors consider advertorial -- we may never know. I posted a few pointers on the article's talk page about what someone could see as advertorial.

In what way your declaration of paid editing is not a declaration of paid editing eludes me, too.

Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. I saw that and will work on the changes. I appreciate the constructive criticism though I feel as if this editor may continue to try to coax some sort of subservient behavior by enforcing his will over my account. Even blocking me for UPE when there are clear disclosures on my page which is essentially breaking the TOS about intentionally posting false info. Thx! UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been blocked (and rightly so IMHO, in view of the attitude they have demonstrated above). Maproom (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Original Poster" -- the user who started a discussion thread. In this case, you. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In different contexts it can also mean "Original Post" -- the first post in a discussion thread. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the admin issue is being discussed at ANI so not sure it needs to be hammered here. As far as the draft, it is rightfully promotional but has a huge hurdle to overcome with notability. If it cannot pass WP:NCORP, promotional tone will be irrelevant. I left a comment on the talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User is now indeffed and draft is up for speedy deletion. This can likely be closed since the only remaining issue is their complaint against an admin being handled at ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mascherato

Quick question: is this notable or promotional? Mascherato: The Musical I stumbled across it while cleaning up the list of musicals. Seems like the person who wrote it created the article and all the sources are primary and only mention. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that notability is doubtful and that there seems to be COI of the initial creator and this wasn't discussed until now. I've added two templates. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]