This is an archive of past discussions with User:Anarchyte. 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.
@WeTalkWiki: You made continuous small edits in large batches to articles to artificially raise your edit count. This counteracts the entire reason the permission exists. Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi there. Thanks for addressing why I fail to be a reviewer on pending changes for now. You mentioned that some of my reverts were "questionable." Can you clarify what kind of reverts I do that are questionable? As far as I'm concerned I have not made much reverts, and all of my reverts were quite reasonable. Anyway, could you give me some examples? Thanks, from GeraldWL17:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: On a second look-over I've realised that I was wrong with my reason for declining your request. As it stands, the only bad revert in August was this, where you re-added unsourced listcruft. However I think the second part of the rationale still stands; I'd like to see some more experience with counter-vandalism before granting. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk • work) 05:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Anarchyte, thanks for noting! I initially thought, during the revert, that a few examples of those tourism things were okay. I'll come back once I feel like it. And cheers! GeraldWL05:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Tooth and Tail is a real-time strategy video game developed and published by the indie development team Pocketwatch Games, loosely based on a design by founder Andy Schatz. It was released in September 2017 for Windows, MacOS, Linux, and PlayStation 4. The game is set in a society of anthropomorphic animals during a time of severe food shortage. The player assumes the role of a commander of an army of animals, and begins by choosing six units out of a pool of twenty to use during the game. The goal is to build structures and create units with which to destroy the enemy's resources. This screenshot of the game illustrates its heads-up display, along with various structures and units in a desert landscape.
Looking upon your edit history the edit you made by commenting "not done" on my pending changes reviewer request and the previous edit is about 7 minutes.
Considering you took some time by moving from Requests for permissions/Page mover to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer, and then taking time to read the comment of @UncleBubba and also comment by @Prahlad balaji, then responding them would have taken about 3-5 mins.
So, it makes me wonder that your decision to not give me the right for "Pending changes reviewer" was solely based on the comment left by UncleBubba and not by my contribution history of combating vandalism and majority of productive edits(which exceeds any unproductive ones) Looking forward to hearing from you on this matter. Thank you! Angus1986TALK12:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Couple points to clear up here. Anarchyte read my reply too, and then only did he make his decision. Pending changes review involves correcting edits of people who happen to have bad grammar, and Anarchyte doesn't think you have the grammar skills for that (no personal attack, just what Anarchyte meant). UncleBubba did not say to deny your permission; they simply said to grant it as a trial or something like that. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
"Pending changes review involves correcting edits of people who happen to have bad grammar" ...???? Seriously?
@Angus1986: It is at the reviewing admin's discretion as to whether to grant any permission. I fail to see why I should grant you a permission relating to content when there's a long discussion about content-related errors on your talk page from less than a week ago. I am not, and did not, make any statements about your grammar skills; rather I took issue with the situation, especially given experienced users and admins called the edits unhelpful and disruptive (and threatened possible blocks). I noted in my decline reasoning that being proficient at countervandalism is not the only requirement for PCR, meaning that once a possible problem in another area appeared, I did not need to check your reverts as thoroughly as I would have with someone that doesn't have any advanced permissions. In regard to the timing, patrolling those two PM requests took very little time at all because of both users' short/old move log (check my comments on their requests). Additionally, I usually have multiple permission request pages open at once (PM, PCR, and RB, typically), and opening and reviewing 20 diffs at random with a quick spot check of their talk page for recent disputes doesn't take much more than 5-10 minutes each. Anarchyte (talk • work) 17:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There you go that's where the bias started, the discussion was almost 11 days old, the new recent discussion was about the false accusation by Mandruss that I was a sock puppet for another user. You didn't go through the talk but instead looked at the length. There was no admin involved, instead Mandruss complained against me for Edit Warring and admin Salvio declined his complaint because I was innocent. Instead, he advised me that he finds some edits to unhelpful too, so that's how the admin was involved, everything was resolved by 1st September. The latter discussion was on sock puppets, and then me falsely accusing someone for sock puppet. Then the current discussion is just UncleBubba just calling on me for the old edits which I edit on 29-31st August. I reverted all of my edits on 1st September and everything was resolved then. So, you claiming an active dispute and threats of blocks in the last week doesn't make sense. Angus1986TALK17:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Angus1986: I'm not sure how you can say "there was no admin involved" and then name an involved admin. Salvio giuliano said this: some of your changes are unhelpful or even straight-out disruptive. [...] if you do not stop [...] making contentious changes or introducing errors into articles, I'll be blocking you for disruption. I'm not sure what else there is to say except for that I am not going to be granting you the pending changes reviewer permission and I doubt other admins would at this time either. Take my advice at WP:PERM/PCR: wait a month and reapply. Anarchyte (talk • work) 17:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The admin only got involved indirectly after the false accusation of Edit Warring, and I abided his statement which was done on 31st August and I stopped it by that time. So you when to call it as last week then I don't know what to say. I don't want pending changes reviewer, for now, I will re-apply later, I am sure I will get it, but what you did is unfair to me. Just because of the comment of UncleBubba It hurt my feelings. Just because of his personal opinion it affected your decision. Angus1986TALK17:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Angus1986: Please do not ping me in a conversation unless you want me to respond. Since you've already told me you don't want to hear from me, is your use of the {{u}} template (above) another example of your unwillingness to learn how things work before you use them?
Angus1986, to be fair, while I did say you were not edit warring, I also clarified that I found some of your edits inappropriate or even disruptive (off the top of my head, there were at least two cases where you inadvertently changed the meaning of the sentence, as a result of your edit, the "port/part" and "instead of/instead" changes). I do think you have good intentions and are willing to improve Wikipedia; however, I also think that sometimes you are not careful enough and end up messing up. I did not see your request for PCR, but had I seen it, I would probably have it declined on the grounds that you still need to gain more experience and to show that you have learnt to edit more carefully. Salvio21:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
But @Salvio giuliano Don't you think it is unfair to judge the entire profile based on the few bad edits made between 29-31st August. I am not saying I am perfect, I even make mistakes occasionally but they are not the one like you have noticed during 29-31st August. You can check my recent edits, I am not asking you to grant me any permissions either, I will learn more and be patient. But just because of that one incident everyone thinks that I am just a bad editor which is quite discouraging and hurts my feelings. :( Angus1986TALK21:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
EDG 543
Hello Anarchyte,
You granted rollback to this user yesterday, and today I had to give them a stern warning for some unacceptable behavior. I also blocked their friend for blatant edit warring. Please take a look at the edits in question and the discussion on the two user talk pages. The good news is that they are contrite. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
Overall winner
1st - $500
2nd - $200
3rd - $100
Diversity winner - $100
Gender-gap fillers - $100
Language Winners - up to $100*
We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
Earlier last month, you protected this page for a few days after I listed it at RFPP. The same IP editor who caused problems then is back, edit warring back in the same problematic edit repeatedly over the past few days. Could you take a look and determine if it's enough to temporarily re-protect the page, maybe for a week or two this time? Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Anarchyte::The temporary user rights you provided to me, such as rollbacker here and pending changes reviewer here, have expired. I request you to grant me these rights permanently. After reviewing my activities in this period.. Thanks -- Padavalam🌂 ► 09:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Padavalamkuttanpilla: At this time, I don't think you are ready for permanent permissions. You haven't been warning the users you revert unless it's done automatically through Huggle or a similar tool. There are also a bunch of instances where you've misused rollback. For instance, this is not vandalism and this should have had an edit summary. I'm going to hold off on granting you the permission for now. I'd like you to spend more time undoing edits again to force you to use edit summaries and to give you more time to consider the edit you're reverting. Your next request should be placed at WP:PERMS. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Rollback request
I see that you have canceled my application. Please tell me why I do not deserve this degree and what I should do to get this rank "rollback". Thanks (Thepesar (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC))
Please forgive me, I did not know that I should not send several requests at the same time, but at the moment I just want this rank "rollback" and I ask you to trust me and grant me this access. I have revarted more than 600 vandalism and have been over 1 year on wikipedia that you can check from my profile.
Thank You (Thepesar (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC))
Thepesar with the incompetence you're displaying all over Wikipedia. I don't believe you're at the level yet to be granted rollback or any PERMS at this time. Sorry. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬07:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you are User:Nnadigoodluck insulting some users and sure me. I came to Wikipedia a year later and I still did not know a series of rules, but I try to be better every day.
Thanks Thepesar (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you explain why you had problems with [2] and [3]? You mention that those should be reverted as vandalims not good faith; however in both cases they were as vandalism only under an specific subset of vandalism. Reverting all edits as pure vandalism is not only unclear but also an misuse of Redwarn per its page. Thanks in advance, AsarteaTalk|Contribs13:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Asartea: For Zuni, there is no chance an entire population disappears. This is obvious vandalism, not a good-faith edit that failed to supply a source. For Crown prince, it's vandalism because of not only the content removal, but changes like "dependinag", "Swedefright", "grandsonf by malsddle Efasta". Sure, you could revert this one as removal of content, but its unlikely there was no malicious intent behind this edit. These are just some of the reverts I found during a spot-check of your edits. There may be more examples of changes that toe the line between vandalism and AGF, but it is important for a rollbacker to be able to distinguish between them. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Anarchyte, As you declined my rollback request here. I take in as positive intake. But here I would like to highlight the issue which I faced during my trial period, my xtools was not working so I didn't take note of my rollback action which I did. I apologise for my mistake, I never intend to do so. I'm aware of the rollback policy. Can you please elaborate your comment which you left on the rollback page please, I will surely work on it and fix my mistake. Thanks --C1K98V(💬✒️📂)14:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@C1K98V: I don't see how xtools having issues would impact your use of rollback. Your current issue is that you undo edits without correct edit summaries; every link I listed is an example of an incorrect summary. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello once again Anarchyte, True xtools issue cause a problem during my trial period. I consult with few admins over irc too, but got no resolution. I apologise because I can't show screenshot. How to check/re-examine the rollback edit I did during my trial period but I can't find out properly, because I knew edit were checked through xtools. I'm sorry about my mistake of edit summary. I will rectify my mistake. Thanks. C1K98V(💬✒️📂)16:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
Greetings,
Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.
It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.
Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
Overall winner
1st - $500
2nd - $200
3rd - $100
Diversity winner - $100
Gender-gap filler - $100
Language Winners - up to $100*
We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
HI Anarchyte/Archive 10,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online, María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-disliked YouTube videos (2nd nomination) 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. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Was pending-changes reviewer right granted to User:Outlander07 ([4][5]) so that he can blatantly revert without explanation? Violating WP:REVEXP and WP:FIES, and triggering edit-war without explaining the change in edit summary or in talk page, see history at Kalaripayattu. He has been previously accused of misconduct in the same page (from this SPI, apparently he is a pro-Nair and anti-Ezhava/Thiyya casteist and promoter of Hinduism - it can be seen at Kalaripayattu too [6]). Do you think he is qualified to posses this right? (let me ping MusikBot too) 2409:4073:D:2E0C:449D:CCB1:2C89:AF70 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The content they reverted was poorly written and added by a user with a username that mirrored the topic ("Kalari Poothara"). As for the sources, this cites Wikipedia and YouTube, this doesn't mention Kalari Poothara, this is entirely unrelated, etc, this is a duplicate, this looks unreliable and has no "about us" page, etc. It's as though the user that added this content googled "Kalari" and copied the first fifteen links that came up. I'll note that Outlander asked to discuss this dispute with you on the talk page, yet no discussion has started. In my experience, users that disagree with a revert usually talk about it instead of requesting the removal of permissions. You haven't even reached out to him on his user talk page. Why don't you start a discussion on the article's talk page, ping them, and then see where it goes. Anarchyte (talk • work) 05:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't justify misconduct. He was obliged, but not only he failed to put an explanation in edit summary (especially when it was disputed) but also refused to discuss the matter in talk page, even after I had specifically told him to do so in the first place. Rather, he chose to edit war with further revert. Is this the behavior a Wikipedia editor should posses? He has more obligation than me to start discussion. Beside, I was talking about my edits ([7][8][9][10]), where is the explanation for reverting this? If Kalari Poothara's edits were the issue then it should have specifically removed. Next time I am taking this to ANI attention. 2409:4073:4E94:C4C9:8D70:7EF0:E801:7D7D (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that a mass revert like that should have carried a better explanation than simply "Reverting back to last good version". This is definitely an edit dispute, though, and you're well within your right to take this to ANI if you really think it's necessary. However, before you do let's ping Outlander here so that they can speak for themselves. @Outlander07:. Anarchyte (talk • work) 03:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I apologize in the first place for being late in intervening in the dispute. Edits that have no basis or citations will be removed, If I had not done it, someone else would have done it. My intention there was to remove the unfounded and reach a consensus or to make changes to the scratch. I could not go ahead with it then because of my changed schedules. Even before I came to the article, this gentleman's war had already begun, and it was obvious at a glance. Reverting edits and saying that verified sources on the page are Cherry picked because they do not support his POV. Even calling me a racist, pro-nair ,anti- ezhava. Definitely, the above guy is trying to be a refined POV pusher.Outlander07@talk16:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Anarchyte
I suspect there is sockpuppetry involved like Kalari Poothara. The very same guy or a group keeps making disruptive or unsourced edits and accusing me by pointing unfounded evidence at WP:SPI. The recent investigation against me was of this kind. Outlander07@talk17:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I’m inclined to support Outlander07 in this dispute.
As anyone can see in the Kalaripayattu page statistics, I have essentially been one of main editors and maintainers of the page.
From grammar and spelling mistakes, to improving wording/phrasing and adding sources, all the way to reverting edits made by Tamil nationalists, Pro-Ezhava, Pro-Nair, and other politically motivated users, I’ve been active in the maintenance of this page for the past year, and have an undeniable role in making the page more organized and legible, all while cleaning up edits and changes that are made by users who do not have English as their first language in order to better incorporate the information they provide into the article.
In my past year of experience with this page, Outlander07 has never caused any issues for the page other than reverting vandalism and POV based editing like the kinds I mentioned above. I have never seen him promoting hatred against any group mentioned in the article. On top of this, the article does not have any special leanings towards Nairs or Ezhava groups in India. Kalaripayattu was utilized by both groups and still is today. He has been pretty responsible and fair with handling pending changes since the page protection level on the page was increased.
In the end, I completely agree with Outlander07 that this anonymous user is trying to act like a refined POV pusher.
He has declared that verifiable sources from the official websites of governing bodies that are literally mentioned in the article to be “cherry picked,” and has not provided any counter sources to verify his claims of cherry picking.
He claims that any source that does not support his POV is invalid, yet provides no source of his own to justify HIS reverts or edits.
Also, it is worth noting that this anonymous user, despite his claims and citations of Wikipedia’s policies and rules, is in direct violation of them himself.
He has a record of not only being banned multiple times for disruptive editing (with one temporary ban which is currently active) but also has a record of block evasion.
The full record of this user’s ban history and block evasion can be seen below:
Prior to him, no one in the past year or so that I have been active on the page has declared anything on the page to be massively inaccurate without providing substantial evidence. For those that have provided sufficent evidence, I have made the necessary changes to the article to keep the article as orderly, informative and accurate as possible.
I find it difficult to take a block evading, anonymous individual with multiple edit bans to his name seriously, regardless of who he pings.
It is also worth noting that he appears to have his OWN political motivations behind his editing.
While he accuses Outlander07 of being “Pro-Nair” and “Anti-Ezhava,” he himself appears to be on the opposite end of the spectrum, and appears to have a “Pro-Ezhava” stance, which in turn, shows in his editing.
He has a habit of adding the word “Ezhava” or “Thiyya” on various articles, without providing any additional sources.
While he may have a point on a few things regarding wording, given his bad behavioral record, lack of sources for his own reverts and edits, his accusation of others regarding sources while not providing his own, his anonymous IP, and what appears to be his own personal political motivations/biases, it honestly makes me think that he shouldn’t be taken seriously, and isn’t qualified in any way to edit this page.
(came here from Kalaripayattu) Anarchyte, the IP range 2409:4073:0:0:0:0:0:0/34 is again on the pages Silambam and Adimurai. They seems to be involved in regional POV pushing with adding WP:OR, misrepresenting sources and unreliable sources. They don't want to have a proper discussion in the talk pages and is making baseless accusations. I can't give them an arbitration enforcement warning as they use different IP address for each edit. I've asked for page protection for Silambam. Could you revert these articles to their status-quo or protect them. They are showing WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and don't want to listen to any of the editors here. This message they had left on my talk page with another IP, they are accusing me of minor problems already in the article. This is becoming a headache. They are boldy lying everywhere with no substantive evidences. I think they are not afraid of scrutiny since they are editing using multiple IPs. SUN EYE 120:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Anarchyte, it appears that Suneye1 has experienced the same forms of vandalism and unsourced, POV editing from this person as Outlander07 and I have. I was not aware of his presence in Silambam and Adimurai, as I am not a practitioner of either of those arts, and do not have adequate knowledge to edit those pages at this time, but from what I can tell, he appears to be entrenched in regionalistic and tribalistic politics that shouldn’t be be present in any informative, unbiased article.
However, another place where he’s put in an unsourced, regionalistic POV edit is on the Unniyarcha page, where he has stuck the word “Thiyyar” into the description, despite the word Chekavar, a word and page that already mentions the Thiyya by name, already being there. When I attempted to remove the redundant wording, he came on a few hours later and added it back in without giving any reason behind his edit.
It appears that he is causing trouble not only here on the Kalaripayattu page, but on the Silambam and Adimurai pages as well according to Suneye1. I would agree with what Suneye1 has stated, and believe that increasing the page protection or restricting this IP’s ability to edit on these pages may be the best course of action, but this is merely my thoughts on the matter.
I can also confirm that he has posted edits from multiple IPs aside from the one here. One of the ones he has posted from is IP ranges 157.46.141.57 and 157.44.177.126
The latter IP was used to accuse myself and Outlander07 as being the same person on Suneye1‘s talk page. While I guarantee that we are not the same person, it does seem that he’s angry that his unsourced and POV edits are being reverted and questioned. Kalariwarrior (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all sorry for being late in discussion here.
Actually i need to make a point here is that I'm not into any disruptive edits or into any vandalism.
The user outlander07 calling me sock puppet is ridiculous.
I have been editing the kalaripayattu article with valod sources from the beginning.
Then suddenly the 2409:4073 range ip came and started disruptive editing and edit war.
In between i only try to discuss the issues to reach a consensus.
Later the ip user, suspect that he is a well known wikipedia editor as he is quoting wikipedia rules, came anonymous and started editing disruptive and was into edit was with Kalariwarrior in between in also tried to resolve his claims of i sourced by providing sources.
I have not called anyone pro ezhava or pro nair.
Yes i have contributed to ezhava pages, with references, that doesn't mean I'm a vandal or a pro ezhava.
I have contributed into these pages relating to martial arts as I'm into that subject.
Also i need to make the point clear is that there is also thiyya vandal and tamil vandal adding the word thiyya and tamil (instead of kerala) frequently in page.
Please don't make any false accusations on me.
I'm here to contribute to martial atrs related history or things as I'm highly into.
I also suspect the more 'fake vandalism' will be coming from some users to make protect the pages. As i have seen it in many pages earlier, where some fake vandalism attack is carried to show the admins that these caste group is making vandalism (actually not) and forcing the admins to make the things on the page deleted on to increase the page level protection.
These types of proxy vandalism claims i have seen in many pages.
Like you can expect a guy coming today and writing in the article ' Ezhavas were the real kings and they invented kalaripayattu... ' like these.. actually the guy will not be a ezhava but making proxy vandalism attacks to make others think that ezhava are into vandalism and make other to delete all their things from page.
I think it’s worth noting that Kalari Poothara, has sometimes posted unsourced good faith edits, but has also provided sources upon request, and has also contributed some valuable photos of various rituals performed in the practice of Kalaripayattu, most of which have been done even in the kalari I have trained in. Kalari Poothara‘s first language is not English, but the sourced contributions he has made are fairly solid. I clean up the wording and sentence structure in his edits, and have questioned him on unsourced edits such as Madhya Kalari, which Kalari Poothara mentioned above. After he provided the necessary sources, I allowed him to remove the information on Madhya Kalari from the page.
For what it is worth, while I do not know them personally, I think I can say that Kalari Poothara is not engaged in sock puppetry, but rather (with respect to Kalari Poothara) that he is merely inexperienced with sourcing in Wikipedia while making good faith edits. Kalariwarrior (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Also i have been editing only after making consensus through talk pages.
You can see above an example of how i dealt with other users especially user Kalariwarrior, even before making an edit, i have started down discussion with him.
As I'm a new user(2 months), i always tried to aligned with the wikipedia rules and regulations.
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
A question about leaving messages
Hello! You have recently granted me permission to being a pending changes reviewer (thank you very much!), and in your response [11] you said that you didn't see any warnings given. Would something like [12] or [13] not count? If not, can you show me what you mean? Similarly, if you meant an edit like this [14], what kind of warning? Thank you very much. SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done)18:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I told you before there was a sockpuppetry involved in the recent changes made to the articles that I was accused of being in an edit war. That has now proven to be true[[18]]. Outlander07@talk08:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list. (Delivered 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC))
By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorizedfor all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
(Redacted)'s comment stated that he was not (Redacted). According to (Redacted), he was (Redacted). Nothing in the comment was overisight worthy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I have filed requests to Oversight several times, have a rough idea of what's involved, and saw this request before it was redacted. I had a very similar conversation many years ago when an editor claimed something along the same lines was outing, there was a brief discussion about whether or not it was, and no action was taken. (I'm not going to link to the discussion directly because it allows people to work out what was redacted here). Hopefully, Arbcom will sort this out, as you've caused an editor to retire, which is never a nice feeling. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I definitely agree. I did not intend to drive someone to retirement and I do hope Hemiauchenia reconsiders. I was told quite early on that Oversighters should err on the side of caution and should discuss the matter after it's been first suppressed. If ArbCom does however decide that this was too heavy handed I'm very willing to undo it. Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: I just had a discussion with AmandaNP and we came to the conclusion that the talk page suppression was unnecessary given the amount of intermediary edits between now and the time of the post. I've gone ahead and removed the suppression from your talk page while keeping the original post removed. Regards, Anarchyte (talk • work) 17:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The above link redirects you from the Water system article. I don't know how to do it (I am new). Please go to the talk page of the Water system article itself. Sorry about that. Mitral8 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring?
Hi, Anarchyte. You have warned Moaqasaxz12 about edit warring on White slavery, but I can't see that they've reverted even once — just made a slew of consecutive edits (bad edits, removing sourced content, which I've warned them about). Are you assuming they're the same as Xwasx12s? Bishonen | tålk10:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC).
You know what, you're right Bishonen. I mistakenly read both usernames as the same (both having 12 toward the end and a slew of a, s, and x, as well as being redlinked). I'm not sure if they're the same person but they both seem interested in very similar topics. I'm going to remove the edit war notice from their talk page because they in fact reached out after being reverted. Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! They could also be meatpuppets from some internet discussion elsewhere. It'll come out in the wash, I expect. Bishonen | tålk10:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC).
Inquiry
Hey! Not to pressure you or anything but I noticed my request in WP:PERM/R was skipped. I have no issues with it as long as someone else could check it but I'm afraid other sysops would be entitled to skip it as well and think something's wrong with it/pending. Thank you! - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 11:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello reviewer,
Clearly I'm a neophyte to this and am terribly confused by all the code required for what I see as little more than an email. Nevertheless, you rejected my submission for APO Encryption as it being subject to copyright. It is my business, my website, and my writing on that website, yet ...
So, I've changed the copyright notice on the website to (cc) or creative commons and Free Cultural Works. I hope that resolves this issue and we can proceed with the creation of a wiki page for my software?
Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.
Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!
Hey! I came here to request that Doja Cat's Wikipedia page be unprotected. This article was protected due to vandalism in May 2020, when Doja Cat faced accusations of participating in racist conversations on the internet. The accusations have since died down (and to an extent have been proven false). Furthermore...
1. Due to the article's protection, a lot of necessary information doesn't get added until long after they happen.
2. I'm sure there would be many unconfirmed users interested in adding content (Doja Cat is pretty famous right now, so this is a given).
3. The risk for vandalism is significantly lower than it was before.
@Versacespace:Doja Cat was protected because of vandalism and WP:BLP violations. The protection is scheduled to end in a couple of months time, so I don't see much point in unprotecting it early because she's still in the news, and it's very unlikely that someone this popular won't immediately be vandalised. Indeed, I expect the protection to be re-applied shortly after it expires. Remember that edit requests can be posted on the talk page by users that do not meet the semi-protection requirements. Regards, Anarchyte (talk • work) 07:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Not the author of this article but I did produce the radio series. It is regularly repeated on BBC 4Xtra and is also available a commercial download. Wondering why the article would be deleted.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
