:Thanks for your message. I reverted your edit once, is that edit warring? If so, I'm sorry! Cheers, [[User:A455bcd9|A455bcd9]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9#top|talk]]) 17:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Thanks for your message. I reverted your edit once, is that edit warring? If so, I'm sorry! Cheers, [[User:A455bcd9|A455bcd9]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9#top|talk]]) 17:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
== Ignore M.Bitton ==
I'm sorry that M.Bitton is giving you a hard time. They were difficult in the original discussions around map reliability as well. The editor has a solid history of productive work, but some of their engagements seem to have the form of trolling. I don't know what to make of what's going on, but you're not being unreasonable. In your shoes, I'd be inclined to ignore them & let the issue drop. [[User:Pathawi|Pathawi]] ([[User talk:Pathawi|talk]]) 18:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey. I'm moving the conversation here just to talk about basic background issues for pulling together a map like you propose. Have you worked on map creation for Wikipedia before? I am willing to put work into this, but don't yet have experience. I'm thinking thru steps we might take to ensure that it remains reliably sourced—or at least is revertible to a reliably sourced version. Pathawi (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that makes sense. I have basic access to Ethnologue thru my university, but don't have access to language-specific maps. (I signed up for the contributor program today; I do fieldwork in the Sudan & Egypt, so I imagine I'll be approved after the US holiday.) The map for the Sudan is not very useful for our purposes. Does the map for Sudanese Arabic give more useful info? Pathawi (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sudanese map is okay, we can just hatch Sudan in a first version. And once you're approved in the contributor program you can submit a request to improve the Sudanese maps. If approved, your requests will be implemented in Feb 2023. And we'll then update the Wikipedia map. Unless you have another reliable source for Sudan and South Sudan that is more accurate. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. What do you think about shades of a base colour for dialect regions, following Versteegh (The Arabic Language, second edition, 2014)? He identifies five major regions: the Arabian peninsula; Mesopotamia; Syria/Lebanon; Egypt; the Maghreb. He sees Maltese, Cypriot Maronite Arabic, the Arabic of Uzbekistan & Afghanistan, the Arabic dialects of Anatolia, Shuwa, & Ki-Nubi as having—of course—historical connections with central dialect regions, but sufficient histories of isolation to merit separate consideration. These could perhaps be in a sixth range of hues. So while there are plenty of structural phonological differences & distinct isoglosses that distinguish Cairene Arabic from Ṣaʕīdī Arabic (both of which are, of course, bundles of speech varieties), they have similarities & a shared history which make it convenient to consider them a dialect grouping markedly distinct from the Arabic of Tunis. For readers who have no background in Arabic, this might make the map more legible. I suggest Versteegh because I've seen him cited by a fair bit of other dialectological work & because he follows his classification with enough of a break-down that we could easily apply this to the numerous dialects listed by Ethnologue, but I'm not wedded to that specific source. Pathawi (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. That's rough. But it's probably roughly right. We should be able to find the original source at the Library of Congress. I think I have all the sort-of-standard references for Sudanese & Juba Arabic at home. When I get back from the office I'll see what they've got. Whatever's out there is certainly going to be rough: The political situation in the Sudan over the past few decades & the ongoing strife in South Sudan has made the region a difficult place to do research. The only work done on Dar Fur Arabic, for example, has been done in Europe with refugees. If there's anything like a dialect map based on on-site investigation, it's going to be from the '60s or earlier. But I'll take a look & tell you what I can find! Pathawi (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I also found a map of Chadian/Shuwa/Baggara Arabic in the Central African Republic in Versteegh 2014 p. 206 we could use it as well. It also shows the distribution of Chadian Arabic in Sudan and South Sudan (near the border). A455bcd9 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stefano Manfredi's Árabi Júba : un pidgin-créole du Soudan du Sud has a map of Juba Arabic & pidgin Arabic (« árabi el besít »), p 11. We probably don't care about the latter. No dice on the Sudan, yet: I've checked the major Western language sources. There are a couple of Arabic-language Sudanese dialect dictionaries at the university library. Tomorrow, I'll head in, scan the South Sudan map, & take a look at the Arabic sources. I don't remember noticing a map in them before, but checking will only take a few minutes. We probably ultimately won't do better than this Library of Congress map. Pathawi (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Juba Arabic map. Again: I think we should ignore « Arabe véhiculaire », as Manfredi is clear that it doesn't refer to a native speaker dialect, but a range of pidgin varieties by non-native speakers who use Arabic as a lingua franca.
I checked the Arabic-language sources on Sudanese Arabic at my university library. No maps. Reichmuth's grammar of Šukriyyah has a map of the area his research covered, but it's not meant to be a full map even for that dialect. Pathawi (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, that's amazing. Do you think the small Juba Arabic speaking areas in Northern Uganda, RDC, and Kenya are actually Nubi speaking?
I don't think that the spillover into neighbouring countries is Nubi: It doesn't match the documentation of Nubi. I'd guess that it's just meant to show that national borders don't contain speech varieties, & that some degree of cross-border interaction in Juba Arabic must occur. I don't there's been an actual language survey of these areas.
Arabe véhiculaire shouldn't be Baggārah as such. Baggārah Arabic is an L1 variety. Manfredi is describing diverse pidgins that people use as, eg, a market language. Pathawi (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: what about Zanzibar, Eritrea, and Somalia. Any significant Arabic-speaking populations there? Do we have maps? I feel like there's no native Omani Arabic speakers left in Zanzibar. No native speakers either in Somalia. But maybe a few Arabic speaking tribes in Eritrea? A455bcd9 (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Zanzibar at all. I had the impression that there was a tiny remaining Omani community on the order of a couple hundred people. Ethnologue claims that there are 17,000 Yemeni Arabic-speakers in Somalia, but that's an immigrant population. I don't know where they get that number. There is no local Arabic-speaking population in Somalia. It makes more sense to include France than Somalia at those numbers. In Eritrea, the Rashā'idah speak Arabic. They emigrated from the Arabian Peninsula in the mid-nineteenth century & spread all over the region, from Jordan to Eritrea. Their dialect is distinctive in the Sudan, & has clear historical connections to the Peninsula. Because of the long-standing Rashā'idah population, Arabic is one of Eritrea's national languages. But where in Eritrea are Rashā'idah communities located? I'd be guessing pretty recklessly. Pathawi (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for Somalia.
For Zanzibar this article says: "For centuries, the Arabic language has been one of the key languages spoken in Zanzibar, but it has now been practically replaced by Swahili." and concludes: "Today, the Hadrami variety of Arabic has almost disappeared, while the Omani Arabic remains the spoken variety, although it is used by a very limited number of people."
We could still add Zanzibar to the map with a triangle or hatched area.
For Eritrea, Ethnologue mentions: "[acw] Northern Red Sea and Southern Red Sea regions. Users: 30,400 in Eritrea (2020). Ethnic population: 80,000 (2010). Status: 6a* (Vigorous). Alternate Names: Rashaida, Rashida. Classification: Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, Central, South, Arabic."
We could similarly color these two areas.
In both cases (Zanzibar and Eritrea) I think it's a detail and we can deal with it later, it's fairly easy to add a triangle on a map (once we have the map :) ). A455bcd9 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Eritrea, I think it makes sense to go along with Ethnologue's description for now, & show Hijāzī Arabic as being spoken in Northern & Southern Red Seas Regions. It's a source we're following anyhow, & it accords with other (non-reliable) information out there. I don't know of anything that contradicts it. & the regions are so small.
For Zanzibar: I guess this is partially a question of what we imagine a dialect map is doing. So, you included the map of Cyprus in your request. That would be two small dots for fewer than 200 speakers. Even in the villages where Cypriot Arabic speakers are found, they're tiny minorities. 30% of Dearborn, Michigan, USA speaks Arabic, almost all Levantine, with something like 200 times the total number of Cypriot Arabic speakers. Detroit, as well, has a very large number of Levantine Arabic speakers. But we're not going to place Michigan on this map. I'm assuming that it intuitively makes sense to both of us to include the 200 Cypriots but exclude the tens of thousands of Michiganders. I propose that the principle we might draw from that intuition is that what we're trying to convey with a dialect map is a geography of where particular living dialects of Arabic might be considered endemic, & that that consideration is largely social: The Rashā'idah have been in Eritrea for over a century & a half & the government clearly considers them to be indigenous Eritreans, so Rashā'idah Arabic (Hijazi Arabic) is endemic to Eritrea. There have been Maġribī communities in Paris for over a century, but they've always been understood as exclaves, so we don't think of Maġribī Arabic as endemic to France. Given that there's no documentation of a Zanzibar dialect ever taking shape (at least, by Gintsburg's interpretation of Nakano: I haven't looked at Nakano—the book is in our university library, & I could take a glance), & that Omanis in Zanzibar seem on the one hand to maintain strong ties to Oman & on the other to have largely shifted to Swahili for home use, I guess I'd be most inclined to just leave Zanzibar off. As you say, it's easy enough to add a triangle afterward. Pathawi (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pathawi Hi, fwi I've just uploaded this file from this source: The Baggara Belt and its main tribes.. If I understand the article: "there is broad agreement on the inclusion of Baggara dialects within West Sudanic Arabic" and WSA = Chadian Arabic. Wdyt? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that's a correct reading of the article, & consistent with other overview sources. Normally, I'd say we shouldn't assume that ethnicity maps to dialect, but Manfredi & Roset are clearly using this as a dialect map with their charting of isoglosses. (I'm cringing a little because it's clear that there's significant dialect variation thruout the region, but Manfredi & Roset don't actually break the isoglosses up into specific dialects.) In the east, this should overlap with Sudanese Arabic. Pathawi (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I had posted it to automatically delete after a certain number of days (I can't remember how many) because of the author's copyright. I still have the scan on my laptop & can get it to you again. Pathawi (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it would take to convince you: Arabic is one of the 1,000 Vital articles Level 3 articles, and yet the current map was so inaccurate that it was removed from all articles on the English Wikipedia. However, it (or its translations) is still used in more than 200 articles in various language editions. If you google "arabic dialects map" you won't find an accurate map either (it's either the one from Wikipedia, or variations of it, many including the non existing "Somali Arabic").
So it would be amazing if you could help. Please let me know if you need anything else. I can also try to help (if there's any way to collaborate on such a work and fasten the process...).
Could we move dialect by dialect through the map? The lion's share of the work is going to be synthesizing the sources together to come up with a polygon that people are happy with. Further, adding dialects with less than 2,000 speakers as of 20 years ago seems fanciful to me. -- GuerilleroParlez Moi20:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "move dialect by dialect through the map"?
Regarding small dialects, I assume you refer to Cyprus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan? If that's easier don't add them. We can always add a triangle (rather than a precise location) as some maps do. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en, I've unfortunately just been blocked (see below...): I hope this situation can be solved at some point, but in the meantime I'll answer you here. So:
Yes: all of Western Sahara except for the small area where Moroccan is spoken
Ethnologue says for Hassaniya in Morocco "proper": "Souss-Massa-Drâa region: Mhamid, western Algeria border", see here => so small that you can probably forget about it...
@A455bcd9 As there is a risk material could be deleted before this issue is resolved I will hold my work until you have sorted this thing out, I do hope you understand this, thanks and just get back to me when it's fixed. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Under "Blocked as a sockpuppet" below it's written "and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted." and as you are the requester and the one with knowledge I just don't want to risk doing substantial work that risk being deleted, it's probably not very likely but still, it's enough. Sorry for that but just get back to me and we will continue. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: Ah, I get your point. Please note that the ban only applies to the English Wikipedia. In particular, it doesn't apply to Commons. So there are 0 risks the work you'll do will get deleted from there. And even regarding the English Wikipedia, only contributions "made while evading blocks or bans" may be reverted (for instance, if I create a new account and try to edit pages other than my talk page). Anyway, I understand your fear and hope this situation will be resolved at some point... Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MSA fluent speakers
Unrelated to the map, I've been wondering what's the exact number of fluent speakers in MSA for a while now. I posted my reasoning on Reddit last year. tl;dr: if we define "speaker" as someone able to understand and speak with fluency on any topic then only those with higher education in Arabic are able to reach such a level, which leads to about 60m speakers, far from the 274.0 million current estimate.
Of course, if we define MSA user as someone able to understand MSA on TV or at the mosque, this would lower the bar.
What do you think? Do you have sources about this? I found some that I posted here. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnologue has not yet approved my contributor status (yesterday was a Federal holiday in the United States), so my access to the site is purely thru the university's subscription, which is limited. I'm unable to find their criteria for identifying an L2 speaker.
I don't know of good research on this that addresses Arabophonie as a whole. Manfred Woidich refers to modern Fuṣḥā as 'Modern Written Arabic', which I think is a more socially accurate descriptor than 'Modern Spoken Arabic'. Very impressionistically for Egypt: Most people can understand a Fuṣḥā news broadcast. Most people think that they understand a Friday xuṭbah, but I think it's likely that many overestimate their comprehension. A majority can read everyday written material without difficulty. (How big a majority? Not sure.) The number who could read a novel is substantially smaller. When it comes to production, I suspect that most people who have finished aṯ-ṯānawiyyah could write in Fuṣḥā, but are likely to do so with mistakes, & probably feel unconfident about their writing abilities. Professionals in intellectual work with higher educations are much more likely to be able to confidently write in correct Fuṣḥā. But speaking Fuṣḥā extemporaneously? That's relatively few people. Speaking Fuṣḥā extemporaneously outside of limited, stereotyped, practiced professional contexts? That number's got to be minuscule. I don't know which of these sets of speakers Ethnologue is considering to be L2 speakers. There definitely aren't 65.5 million Egyptians who could have an extemporaneous conversation on a novel topic in Fuṣḥā. No way. Pathawi (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's more or less what I concluded from the sources I found. You can find them here and there, let me know when you join the program and have access to these pages, I'd love to know your opinion. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Niacin
A Pubmed search on Parkinson's disease niacin, limited to reviews, yields articles that may be worth adding to the paragraph you started on PD and niacin. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue: individual clinical trials are usually not accepted as references because those do not meet the WP:MEDRS guideline. (Nor does in vitro or animal research.) There are exceptions made in Research sections of medical/health articles, but as this is a Good article, it should probably adhere to the guideline. I intend to remove the clin trial ref and add review ref(s).
But in any case feel free to replace the clinical trial ref by review ref(s) if they are focused on nicotinic acid (articles I found are mostly about nicotinamide riboside). A455bcd9 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you cited is an editorial description of one clinical trial. This does not make it a review, i.e., MEDRS compliant. A better citation would have been the actual trial article by Chong et al, which brings us back to not MEDRS. P.S. While I was the person who raised Niacin to GA (along with nine other vitamins) I try hard to not take an 'ownership' approach to subsequent changes to the articles. I will leave your addition in place until ready to provide review references for the potential as prevention or treatment for Parkinson's disease. David notMD (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I added Chong et al. as a source and changed the wording to make it more neutral. Another article by Chong et al. ("A novel treatment target for Parkinson's disease") was actually already cited so I think it makes sense to cite this follow-up clinical trial. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have kept the two Chong co-authored articles for the moment, but removed everything else in the Research section. That paragraph about animal and in vitro evidence was added on 15 April 2016 and should have been identified and removed before or during the GA review in 2020. David notMD (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for MEDRS is that people look to Wikipedia for medical/health information, so Wikipedia has chosen to be a trailing indicator for information. Hence limitations to reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. David notMD (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From tht article "Niacin has not yet been tested in humans in the context of Alzheimer’s disease." Again, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator on medicine/health. David notMD (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Based on these findings, a clinical trial of niacin treatment for glioblastoma patients is currently taking place at the University of Calgary." A455bcd9 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hinglish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Google Pay.
Thanks for the invitation - it looks like a very worthwhile endeavour (what I think Quora was supposed to be originally). However, I don't think I can promise anything currently. Try me in six months. By the way I am based in the North of England. Regards Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not a sockpuppet of BillWikiAsk. Bill is this person and I am this person. Bill is the founder of Wikiask.org. You can see him as an admin on the Wikiask's Telegram channel and on Wikiask.org (together with @Onel5969: and @Doncram:). Bill and I are two different people. Bill launched Wikiask and got in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation and several Wikipedians. I was interested in the project and decided to help Bill. Here's my Wikiask account. As I initially believed in Wikiask's vision, I reached out to various Wikipedians using the internal emailing system. I especially contacted those who proposed similar projects in the past, such as Wikiask and Wikianswers, to see whether we could work together. Many answered and were happy to chat. Bill and I especially had calls with @AdamSobieski, SebastienDery, Sj, Pharos, and Aaharoni-WMF: who can testify that we are two different people. I also contacted Reference Desk regulars as both projects had similarities (Q&A) and to get their feedback (and as suggested by User:SteveBaker, an early user of Wikiask). Anyway, I stopped emailing people after a few days when I got enough answers (and before the block). This week (on Wed 12th to be precise), I told Bill that I didn't want to get involved in Wikiask anymore because I didn't believe in the project anymore, so Bill removed me from the list of admins on October 13th. I should add that Bill and I live in London and that I invited Bill in my coworking space a few days (I'm happy to provide the location of this coworking space to admins privately so that they can check this claim) so we probably appear to share the same IP address for some edits (otherwise, I make most of my edits from my home, which is where I'm currently writing this message). I was open about my (short...) involvement in Wikiask and our location in London in a message on my talk page. I have thousands of edits on various Wikimedia projects, since 2007 (without any problem so far...), and I was working on an FAR when I saw "Something went wrong You have been blocked from editing." So I'm just shocked. I'm not a suckpuppet of Bill. I did send emails to Wikipedians to ask for feedback on what I thought was an interesting project (since then, I've changed my mind...). If this was forbidden, I didn't know and apologize for doing so. tl;dr: I kindly ask to be unblocked because the block was not and is not necessary: Bill and I are different people, I'm not involved in Wikiask anymore, I stopped emailing people before the block and I won't email anyone anymore anyway (feel free to keep "email disabled", as long as I can contribute again...). I deeply regret my involvement in Wikiask. If I had known that participating in Wikiask would have led to this ban I would never have done it. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
Your email + your explanation here explains the collisions between you and Bill seen in the CU data. Further, you seem to get why the emails were spam. I will unblock you based on this and your past work. Please note, if you spam people in the future you will probably not get unblocked. --GuerilleroParlez Moi18:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Doncram. I was pinged above. I am a longtime Wikipedia editor (mostly on historic sites articles) and had no connection to "A" here or to Bill of WikiAsk until a few days ago. I am here to corroborate much of the above statement by A455bcd9#top, who has apparently been a Wikipedia editor since 2009, see their first edit. I was indeed recently contacted by a person with name starting "A", inviting me to look into the WikiAsk project and ask if I would be willing to talk with Bill, which I agreed to, and I did talk on phone with Bill yesterday. "A" was clear in their email that they were not Bill. I don't think "A" did anything wrong by using their Wikipedia account to send emails to me and others, they were perfectly nice and clear, and I certainly had the option to answer or not, and it seemed/seems to be to have been a helpful thing ("here's something u might be interested in, and would u be willing to answer some questions?"). "A", I do not believe there is anything being perceived wrong about that by anyone, and certainly not by me.
I haven't yet looked at the "sockpuppet investigation", but I can speculate about what might have seemed not kosher, if someone was concerned. Which is partly that the email I received on the first contact to me, i believe via the "Email this user" link on my Userpage, showed some WikiAsk connection. The person writing the email gave their name as "A"-something, and it also included what looks to me like an auto-added sig with "bill@wikiask.org". Like maybe the person with Wikipedia account A455bcd9 was logged in at a wikiask.org address, or had changed the email address on this A4555bcd9 or whatever Wikpedia account to be an email address at wikiask.org, or something like that? The email shows as having come from "Wikipedia <wiki@wikimedia.org>" which I suppose is what all messages via the "Email this user" show. And when I replied my email was sent to "A"-something else at outlook.com. There's another possible discrepancy which I will comment about after I go to the Sockpuppet investigation page. However, so far from what I know, everything said above seems legit. However i think it is still possible there is some other confusion on behalf of the person behind A455bcd9. But I don't see anything nefarious.
Further, I have reviewed the sockpuppet investigation and looked up what "sockpuppetry" and "meatpuppetry" mean, and it seems to me that neither applies. I see the investigation includes commentary about "mass emailing" being a problem, but no mention of how many emails were sent, and while I can imagine that truly mass emails would be a problem, there is no definition or prohibition about mass emailing in the sockpuppet and meatpuppet policies. The relevant part of what is stated in the "investigation" by GeneralNotability is that:
Checks were run here following complaints about BillWikiAsk mass-emailing users about a non-Wikipedia-related topic (WikiAsk). These checks confirmed that mass emailing was occurring, and that A455bcd9 and Hemantruparel were both also sending lots of emails and are technically Likely. Both of the latter also have messages in their talk page histories that suggest that they were emailing about WikiAsk as well. Shipisomani is unrelated from a technical perspective, but they are definitely sending emails en masse and a copy of the email indicates that they're also emailing about WikiAsk, so they're at least a meatpuppet....
I do not see that there is any violation of Sockpuppetry, as there is no discussion anywhere AFAIK where multiple non-independent accounts were speaking as if they were independent. And the Meatpuppetry policy mentions nothing about emailing, it is about multiple users being encouraged outside Wikipedia to work in concert in a Wikipedia discussion or proceeding, as if they were independent, which has not happened. Apparently multiple editors were encouraged outside, to send emails, and they did, but that is not a "crime" if they are in fact different persons and did each choose independently to do so. I wouldn't mind even if they were coordinated in terms of contacting non-overlapping lists of wikipedians, in fact I would prefer that.
The other potential discrepancy, that I mentioned above, is that the email I received has indication that it came from user:Analog292, which is NOT blocked, and which only edited during 2014-2017(?), and appears to be a different Wikipedia account from this blocked account A455bcd9. I am confused, is the person behind A455bcd9 the same person as behind Analog292? I am here because I perceived the ping to me as coming from, I guess, Analog292, because that was the person who contacted me, and then this A-account knows about me either because they are the same as Analog292, or because they saw my creating an account and making an edit at Wikiask (and apparently also being made an admin there). I wasn't aware there could have been two Wikipedia editors with name "A"-something having emailed about WikiAsk. FYI, I see at User_talk:Analog292#Your_e-mail there are comments from several Wikipedians in response to their having received emails. One person, User:Jeff G. asked pointedly "How many people have you emailed?" and so I think it is likely that they and/or others complained centrally somewhere. I now have basic question, did A455bcd9 also send emails about WikiAsk? I guess so, because at User_talk:A455bcd9#Wikiask there is a response from an editor that had been emailed. Well, if it is a "crime" to have emailed about WikiAsk, then User:Analog292 (shows as red, so no userpage, but it is an account, has User talk:Analog292, not named in the Sockpuppet investigation) is also guilty. However, again I see no violation of either Sockpuppet or Meatpuppet policies. I will comment also at the sockpuppet investigation but I note that is already marked "closed".
Bottom-line, though, I support removal of block on A455bcd9 and I do not support blocking of Analog292 although they did also send emails. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, so here's how things look to me. Checkusers received a complaint about BillWikiAsk (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki) sending mass unsolicited emails about WikiAsk, a topic not related to Wikipedia. A checkuser investigation found that they were indeed mass-mailing, and they were blocked for abuse of the email feature (that is to say, spamming). A check on their IP address revealed that they shared that address with A455bcd9, who was also engaged in mass-emailing (by my count, they have sent something like 60 emails over the past month, and that many emails on a non-Wikipedia topic falls squarely into "spam" territory as far as I am concerned). From context, their emails appear to also have been about WikiAsk. Based on the shared IP, same device, and same mass-mailing behavior, I concluded that the two of them were either the same person or actively collaborating, and because BillWikiAsk was blocked for the same behavior, a block of A455bcd9 was appropriate. Further checks indicated that Hemantruparel (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki) also shared the same IP range and device, and they were blocked as well. I was separately informed of Shipisomani (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki) sending mass emails about WikiAsk, and while they were technically distinct, again, same mass-emailing about WikiAsk. And now we have Analog292 (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki), who I have also blocked for spamming (over 120 emails sent in the past two weeks!). I further note that the last three accounts haven't edited in a long time (Hemantruparel made a few token userpage edits earlier this month after not editing since 2017, Shipisomani hasn't edited in two years, and Analog292 in five years), and yet suddenly they're all hard at work emailing people, which is incredibly suspicious in my book (though I don't see clear evidence to suggest that these accounts are compromised). This is past "eager people asking for collaborators" and well into "mass spamming". GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did comment at the sockpuppet investigation and User:GeneralNotability, besides responding here, also responded there (thanks!) in this series of edits in one big diff. I think it clarified things, that indeed there has been, arguably "spam" at least by several accounts, in likely violation of Wikipedia's "terms of use", while I continue to assert there that such is not violation of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry policies as those are explicitly defined. I mention there that I think A455bcd9 should possibly be unblocked because:
1. they have indeed apologized above regarding possibly having violated something by "mass emailing" (about which I agree it is/was difficult for any editor to know is wrong as "spam", or what amount of emailing might amount to spam, as such is nowhere exactly defined AFAIK, as I comment in that big diff).
2. they have expressed regret above about being involved with WikiAsk at all, and have resigned/quit from participation there, and
3. they have made appropriate promises re the future
I commented in the diff that they have edited for a long time with at least some good contributions, though I have not attempted an overall evaluation of all their contributions to compare vs. any disruption caused by this episode, and I have not much further tried to evaluate plausibility of everything they say here. But, the main evidence which led them to be blocked is that WikiBillAsk and they have both edited from the same I.P. address, but that is explained by A455bcd9 apparently running a coworking office in London (which is open workspace for persons to come use on a single or multiple occasions) where WikiBillAsk apparently came and edited also. That seems to me to be a sufficient explanation, and I believe that A455bcd9 has met burden of differentiating themself from that other account. --Doncram (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Doncram for taking my defense. My first edit was even earlier: I started in 2007 (on the French Wikipedia) and I've been continuously active since then, including working one full year on a GA and then featured article here recently (I also promoted GAs and FAs on the French Wikipedia btw).
I did send about 60 emails (I forgot the exact number, I trust what @GeneralNotability wrote) to people who I thought may be interested in Wikiask (again, mostly proposers of similar proposals in the past and RD regulars). And I believed back then (I've since changed my mind and that's part of the reason why I resigned from the project) that Wikiask was aligned with Wikipedia's mission to share knowledge (and that it could one day fall under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation, as Wikivoyage did). If sending 60 emails for such a project qualifies as spam: I didn't know, and I deeply apologize. I will never do it again (and you can keep the "email disabled" to ensure this). I stopped emailing people before this ban, by myself. And I stopped contributing to Wikiask, while I continued my regular (and I believe constructive) edits on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (including in the map workshop, where other users are waiting for my feedback...).
I'm not Analog292 either. If Bill is bypassing restrictions to create multiple accounts (and I believe he does) and keeps sending emails related to Wikiask: this is not my fault. I don't want to be banned for the wrongdoings of others (here, of Bill).
I've been contributing to Wikimedia projects for more than half of my life now. It's important to me. So please consider my request. Please let me know if you have any questions, I'm happy to provide as much detail as possible to lift my ban (for other accounts: that's their problem, not mine). A455bcd9 (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As @Doncram said: "I agree it is/was difficult for any editor to know is wrong as "spam", or what amount of emailing might amount to spam, as such is nowhere exactly defined AFAIK, as I comment in that big diff" => Indeed, Wikipedia allows you to send up to 20 emails per day and then tells you to wait a bit. So I thought that I was well within that limit with the emails I sent (about 60 over a few days, then I stopped), especially as the project was (or at least I thought...) aligned with Wikipedia's mission. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Thanks for the mention. I, too, got spammed by thisuser:Analog292 about WikiAsk. I had not yet begun to complain about it because I did not know for sure that the email message I had received was technically spam until I had read about it here, so I just asked a pointed question. I wonder how A455bcd9 learned about WikiAsk and why they resigned from it. I also wonder how A455bcd9 allowed users like Bill to share IP access in that coworking office without XFF headers and strong terms & conditions. — JeffG. ツ10:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jeff G.. Bill reached out to me on LinkedIn about Wikiask. (please note that besides LinkedIn, I also wrote on Wikipedia on my blog here and there) I was initially excited about the project and about the idea to leverage the wiki model to build something better than Quora (that I used to love, but it's becoming quite bad nowadays...). If successful, I thought that Wikiask could be transferred under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation (as Wikivoyage did).
I helped Bill for a few days (contributed to Wikiask, setup calls with the Wikimedia Foundation, chatted with Wikipedians to gather feedback, etc.) but I gradually realized that I wasn't aligned with Wikiask's vision. In particular, Wikiask initially had a NC ND license, I insisted to change it (together with other users such as @Aaharoni-WMF) to a simple CC BY-SA. Bill eventually accepted to do so (after a call we had with @Sj and @Pharos) but he still wanted Wikiask to be a for-profit organization, with ads on the website at some point. That's when I resigned.
I don't understand your last question regarding "XFF headers and strong terms & conditions". Bill moved to London a few weeks ago and didn't have internet at his (temporary) place so I just offered him to work for a few days in the same coworking space where I was. We both used the same wifi there (as everyone else). A few days from this place and 1 or 2 days from this one. That's it... A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the timeline, I made my first edit on Wikiask on Sept 30th. Initially excited, I then had concerns about Wikiask's vision that gradually grew and reached their peak after our call with Adam, Sj, and Pharos on Oct 11th. I formally resigned and Bill removed me from the list of admins on Oct 13th. If my 15 years of constructive contribution to Wikipedia are erased by these 15 days of initial enthusiasm for a new Wikipedia-like project, I would be heartbroken :( A455bcd9 (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This block doesn't make any sense. I can understand why there was suspicion for a moment, but the user is clearly not a sockpuppet, just shared a co-working space on one occasion. I can confirm I was on a call very recently with those mentioned, who are all indeed very real and individual human beings. Pharos (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let us pause to appreciate the wiki-nature of having an lta process troll confusing the unblock process, and remaining unblocked 😅.
Spamming is obviously a problem, and I see @BillWikiAsk: has listed socks he used on his userpage. Beyond that there are clearly a community barnraising a new project and perhaps being overenthusiastic about it, which is not socking. One-time spam by an active editor is not a great reason to block w/o warning
Hear hear on all points. I see LTA="long term abuse". I did just now comment further at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BillWikiAsk and I ask any person reviewing this block read the full discussion there. But that investigation was marked "closed" before I started commenting there, and the fact is that A455bcd9 was blocked, so this thread is where discussion should continue.
One further point here: A455bcd9 is currently blocked from sending emails and offers above that they could stay blocked as a goodwill gesture I guess, but I think that taking up that offer should not be done. Having email access is a part of allowing sensible occasional communications that further the Wikipedia project's goals, and I don't think there's any reason to continue to restrict A455bcd9's access to that if/when they are unblocked. --Doncram (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wunny1011 has since been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. I too support unblocking Antoine, but with the cautions that: sharing one's Internet access means sharing one's responsibility for what is done with that Internet access; and introspection should be exercised when one hits limits (like per-day email sending limits). — JeffG. ツ11:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Languages of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle German.
You've recently moved this page without any discussion on the talk page or elsewhere. This is clearly a controversial move, as it has already been moved between those two titles before following move requests.
I chose to be bold. I think the move is fine and wasn't controversial. I won't revert. If you're unhappy with the move, feel free to start a discussion. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah indeed! I didn't know there was such a debate before (didn't check before moving the page). Still, I think the current title is better. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
November 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dhofari Arabic. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I'm sorry that M.Bitton is giving you a hard time. They were difficult in the original discussions around map reliability as well. The editor has a solid history of productive work, but some of their engagements seem to have the form of trolling. I don't know what to make of what's going on, but you're not being unreasonable. In your shoes, I'd be inclined to ignore them & let the issue drop. Pathawi (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likely. Both of the latter also have messages in their talk page histories that suggest that they were emailing about WikiAsk as well. Shipisomani is unrelated from a technical perspective, but they are definitely sending emails en masse and a copy of the email indicates that they're also emailing about WikiAsk, so they're at least a meatpuppet....
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dhofari Arabic. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.