Juliette Han

This page is cleared every time an issue is resolved.

Pauline Hanson

Hey there! I saw you reverted my edit to Pauline Hanson. I was just wondering why? Those statements by Pauline Hanson were incorrect, regardless of which side of the political spectrum someone is on. Wikipedia's own Terrorism in Australia article describes at least five different terror attacks (planned or executed) which didn't involve Muslim terrorists. I don't see how there's a breach of neutrality in pointing out the inaccuracies of a statement when the article then proceeds to describe the Islamic Centre of Victoria's request for an apology, which without the context of the statement being wrong, looks unfounded. To this end, I think it could almost be argued that by excluding this inaccuracy qualifier it's in breach of NPOV. ItsPugle (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: Hi! Thank you for your feedback. I accepted your revision (3 edits) and corrected a part of your contribution afterwards. See 'Avoid stating opinions as facts' in WP:YESPOV: we usually do not state that something is correct or incorrect unless it is viewed as a fact in the context of an article (e.g. incorrect math equation). Stating that someone's opinion is incorrect (regardless of whether it is consistent with the facts or not) may be seen as an opinion itself. In line with 'genocide is an evil action' example, if this is how the statement in question is described in the source, you may attribute it to the author, and in this case I will accept your edit. Juliette Han (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! I guess where I contest with you is that the statement is an "opinion." When I read it, I see it as being described as a fact, in which case I would argue that the "incorrect" qualifier would be founded. I've done some more research though, and it seems that in context, Hanson was actually corrected by a reporter right after saying that. Would appending "to which Hanson was corrected by a journalist" work for you: In a live interview after the attack she gave the statement, "All terrorist attacks in this country have been by Muslims," to which Hanson was corrected by a journalist?

@ItsPugle: Sounds OK! Juliette Han (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Juliette Han, ItsPugle, sorry to step in; I just need to point out that dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source. ItsPugle, you'll need a better source that states Hanson was corrected or that states Hanson's statements were incorrect. Schazjmd (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd:, I hear you. I actually think that DailyMail is a reliable source in this instance. By no means do I think that their journalism is perfect (or even good), but this article in question doesn't have really any point where journalistic prejudice occurs, its simply a rather factual recall comprising mostly of direct quotations. If this article were about the Royal Family or another victim of the Daily Mail's relentless assault against humanity, then I'd be all for using another source, but because this is rather isolated from DM's main line of attack, I think this is a fair source. That being said, I've gone even further into the pit that is the News tab on Google, and I have found an actual video from the time that shows Hanson making the statement then being corrected by a journo: HuffPost article (About 2:56). I'll use that instead. ItsPugle (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, about the Daily Mail, I don't mean "in my opinion", I mean you can't use it. See its entry on reliable sources. Specifically, The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. Since you've found a different source, that's good. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Lloyd Cole

Hi Juliette

I was discussing the roll back of my previous edit of the Lloyd Cole image with Doctorhawkes on his Tal, who performed the last rollback, he pointed me to the areas I needed to address, which I thought I had done. I categorised the image and tried to give a clear indication of the permissions to use the image too. In your rollback, you say that I have contravened the Image use policy (Copyright check: Fails WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. (TW)) which I thought I had addressed. The image was taken from a section of Mr Coles website, where he gives permission for the image to be used as long as the photographer is credited, which I did. I included the statement from Mr Cole allowing the image to be used and the link to the page that grants that permission. I also have permission from the original photographer Mark Dellas to use the image can you help me to understand how I can resolve this please? Many Thanks in advance, Turbo.PS Given I now have permission from the photographer, Mark Dellas in writing to use the image, and the subject has already given his permission, how do i place the image in Mr Coles bio and not get it removed again as soon as I do ? KR Turbo

@Turbo Smiff: Hi! Current photo is licensed under a free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license (old version). Copyrighted images that can reasonably be replaced by free images may not be used on Wikipedia. It means that in this case the copyright holder (Photographer Mark Dellas) may release the image under an acceptable free license or upload it themselves (see: WP:ICTIC). If you have any further questions regarding media copyright issues on English Wikipedia, feel free to ask for help here.

Hi Juliette, :@Juliette Han:

Thanks for getting back to me, is that still the case even though both subject and photographer had already publicly stated that the picture can be used by anyone, as long as the photographer is credited? I only contacted Mark out of courtesy in case in case there were any other issues. I just want to check I have this right, if that doesn't change anything, if Mark uploads the picture himself, or anyone else that holds the rights to that or any other image, then that image can be used? THanks for your help so far, I'm new to this, I just want to make sure I get it right without annoying people like yourself too much :) peace,. Turbo

@Turbo Smiff: Two easiest ways in this case:

1. Copyright holder / Someone who represents them may send an email from an address associated with the original publication (in this case - http://www.lloydcole.com/), (how to do it), after that you may tag the image with {{OTRS pending}} when the upload procedure is completed.
2. Alternatively, you can ask the copyright holder / someone who represents them to post a notice on the website where the image originated stating that it is released under an appropriate free license (such as these; CC BY-SA 3.0 is simplest, because Wikipedia's text already uses that license). Juliette Han (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Turbo Smiff: Forgot to mention: or, of course, copyright holder may upload this image themselves without following instructions described above. Juliette Han (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Juliette Han:

Last question Juliette, i promise, and thank you for your patience and giving me so much of your time already. I've been in contact with Mark Dellas again, he's happy to help. I've already uploaded the image, so can Mark as the copyright holder use the Wikimedia OTRS release generator to grant permission for it to be used? I want to make it as easy as I can for him, he's kindly doing it as a favour and that looks like the most expedient option. KR Turbo and many thanks again.

@Turbo Smiff: He can, place the {{OTRS pending}} tag instead of the license: it will be soon changed to a free license template. Juliette Han (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Juliette, @Juliette Han: Thank you for all your help and patience Juliette. Mark's completed the OTRS part and I've now added the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the license and permissions section of the file Lloyd Cole portrait by Mark Dellas.jpg. which now shows an OTRS pending section on the licensing and permissions section when you view the file. I think that's everything? I've now re edited the bio with the image. Once again, thank you for your time and patience, this has been a huge learning process for me that I couldn't have done without your assistance peace., love and stay safe, Turbo x

@Turbo Smiff: Always glad to help! Juliette Han (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oral history “Citation”

You just removed an oral history contribution edit I made to Kinzua, OR. How is it possible to make a “Citation” of an oral history that was provided to me by my father, who told the story first hand from his own experience. Or is it Wikipedia’s policy that first hand information about a place not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rv9av8tr (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rv9av8tr: Hi! I'll kindly ask you to visit WP:V. Juliette Han (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi, I wanted to tell that that is a Urdu form of 'mahdi'

Sincerely Heyday to you Heyday to you (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't just remove edits saying they are disruptive, please include a reason if you are doing this.

I just made an edit for Medjugorje and you removed it saying it was "disruptive" and nothing more but threatening me from being blocked from editing.

Next time you decide to do this, please reference why an edit is disruptive. Your comment as it is was *utterly* useless to me.

@Xzpx: Please review your edit again and tell me if you still believe it should not have been reverted. Pay attention to correlation between the changes that were made and the edit summary. I can also ask administrators to look at this issue. Thanks! Juliette Han (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong in removing the edit. But please in the future elaborate on the reasons for removing and do not threaten people. I was trying to make an article easier to read and you deleted it with no explanation and threatened me with no longer being able to edit Wikipedia. This was not helpful to me at all. Xzpx (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xzpx: Please be advised warning is not a threat. My actions were motivated by a reason, which, by the way, is stated above. I'll also kindly ask you to check your edits before publishing changes, since the edit in question is in fact disruptive as its essence severely contradicts the edit summary. Thank you! Juliette Han (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary was making the article more readable? I believe I have achieved this goal as my changes still haven't been removed. Thank you! User:xzpx. —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Maria al Qibtiya

I'm confused as to the reason for reverting the edit. The change was factually correct while the original article had factual errors.

Please review the academic journal cited (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09596410.2010.500475) as well as the other wiki article about Maria al-Qibtiyya

Slavery in the Arab world predates / post dates Mohammed.

@Exmoose: Hi! Please discuss this change on the relevant Talk page: start a new section and share your arguments regarding alleged factual errors with other editors. I'm not an expert here, but 'of his 13 wives' to 'of his wives and slaves' seems to be a big difference (previous referenced number was removed and a strong word was added). Thank you! Juliette Han (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Arte Moreno reversion

Hello, Juliette,

I attempted to edit the reference to the date of Arturo (Arte) Moreno's high school graduation. It was in fact 1964, not 1965. We were classmates. We both attended the 50th reunion of the class of 1964 in Tucson in 2014. The 1965 date you restored to the article is not a glaring error, or in the scheme of things, a terribly significant error, but it is error nonetheless. Many Americans tend to remember the date of their high school graduation with especial fondness, hence the popularity of class rings, class yearbooks, etc.

The sentence in question is also poorly written. It currently reads "In 1965, graduated from high school. . ." It should have a subject, e.g. "In 1965, he graduated from high school . . ."

187.140.65.23 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Mark Shenfield

Anarcho-Pacifism Revision

Hi there Juliette!

I saw you reverted some of my edits to the page Anarcho-Pacifism, specifically a lot of the links. Firstly, the old Ostergaard citation at ppu.org.uk is a dud and is no longer active so I decided to accumulate these dead citations under the book itself. I think directly citing the book is of higher quality than a dead link! Secondly, there were many different Woodcock citations for the same book, so I put them under the same citation in order to avoid clutter.

You also got rid of this sentence: "Due to Tolstoy's religious views combined with his advocacy for the total dismantlement of the state and its apparatus in favour of the establishment of a voluntarist society, he is seen as a prominent instigator of the Christian anarchist movement."

I have adequate sources for this, so I am wondering why this was deleted?

I am relatively new to Wikipedia so some feedback on this would be very helpful to ensure I can make quality edits in the future. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roar00 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Roar00: Hi! Thank you for your feedback. I've restored your edits. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! Juliette Han (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Juliette Han: Great, thank you for your quick response! Roar00 (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For removing non-verified content from the article Asian Americans which could be perceived as publishing anti-Asian sentiment on Wikipedia, I present to you this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Themes of The Lord of the Rings at GA

Hi, a little while ago you took up the GA review of this article... I'm looking forward to your comments. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Hi! I intended to review this article the next day after I'd taken it, but I unfortunately got sick last week. My apologies! I'll try to review it today or tomorrow. Thanks! Juliette Han (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

Resolved. Juliette Han (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your interest in helping out at AFD. Just as a note, deletion discussions should run for a full 7 days (or 168 hours, if you want to get pedantic); I've seen a few of your closes have been up to a full day early. While there is nothing wrong with non-admin closures, if you want to continue doing them I would highly recommend using WP:XFDCloser to assist. Not only will it take care of the "extra" steps like removing the AFD notice and putting {{Old XfD multi}} on the talk page, it will give a visual cue (red/green highlights) on whether the discussion has run the full 168 hours. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page or ping me. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC) @Primefac: Hi! Thank you for your feedback. I do deliberately close some discussions a bit earlier, but only if the result is so obvious that the discussion becomes eligible for an early close. I try to be attentive to whether there may be even a slight chance of any other result and never close discussions if in doubt. Actually, I based it on my previous observations of how closing instructions are implemented by administrators; most of my early closures are redirects and rare keeps with an uncontroversial consensus. I can abstain from early closures, but I feel that it contradicts common sense a bit. Thank you! Juliette Han (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC) WP:NACAFD is pretty clear that closures should not be made early. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC) @Primefac: I don't see how WP:NACAFD conflicts with my logic. My closures do not violate what is stated there, since I indeed use WP:SK reasons if early closing as 'keep'. My early redirects that you may refer to are exclusions where I exercised common sense since they were identical to previously closed cases (songs from the album), and I do believe that rare exclusions may take place as per WP:NOTLAW respectfully. As I said, this does not constitute my practice. Anyway, thank you for your feedback, I'll make a note of WP:XFDCloser. Juliette Han (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved. Juliette Han (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I just wanted to drop a note to encourage you to participate in deletion discussions instead of nacing them. Also relists should really be left to admins, if done at all. Lastly, I'd strongly encourage you to read WP:RELISTBIAS. Praxidicae (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) @Praxidicae: Hi! With all due respect, I'll take a rain check on this one. It was only once that I used relisting, and while you and Primefac may disagree with me, I had a clear inner reasoning that does not conflict with the linked essay. My opinion is that there was not substantive debate as the discussion lacked substantive comments concerning the topic. I'd read both guidelines and relevant essays before taking any action at AfDs and probably skipped that part where it says editors can't sometimes disagree. As for closures in general, administrators 'thanked' me multiple times for outcomes, so I don't see any common disapproval. Moreover, I don't think non-administrator closures are an issue at all if performed correctly and carefully. Primefac left a note and I responded. Excuse me, but your message has a slightly rude connotation. Juliette Han (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Let me put it this way, it would be a better use of y our time and way more valuable to the project if you would participate in these discussions instead of closing them, especially given you've got a grand total of 4 edits actually participating in AFD. We have plenty of admins who monitor and close AFDs, but ultimately I can't stop you. My message wasn't rude, it was informing you of some guidelines and essays that are highly relevant to an area you're editing in. You really need to be willing to hear people out if you're intending to work in administrative areas...anyhow, have a nice day! Praxidicae (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC) @Praxidicae: I indicated that I'm familiar with those guidelines and essays you wanted to inform me of, but what is more important - that I don't really see how my closures contradict them. I didn't say that your message was rude, I said it has a slightly rude connotation, and it does as long as your intention is to dishearten me from doing something that is absolutely valid (to encourage you to participate in deletion discussions instead of nacing them, it would be a better use of y our time and way more valuable to the project if you would participate in these discussions instead of closing them, etc.). I am not new to the project and have never been accused of being not collaborative, so maybe there is still something wrong with your initial message that you edited. By the way, how come I got 4 participation edits when at least 5 are simply nominations (to be clear, I'd been actively participating in AfDs in 2019)? You've expressed your point, and here's mine: unreasonably patronizing and deliberately discouraging messages with no grounds will never be valuable to the project either. Juliette Han (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For all your good contributions! 😊

Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of sockpuppetry block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juliette Han. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juliette Han (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The sockpuppet investigation against me was initiated, checked and closed by the same administrator at the same time, therefore I was unable to provide any comments on the matter. I will try to be calm and not to accuse anyone of anything. Since I have no access to the technical information that allegedly showed my relationship to these users, I can only state the following:


1. Neither Gabtreats, nor Tulpan64 are accounts I have ever used. To be fair, I don’t understand the argument ‘Juliette closed their AfDs and replied at the Teahouse’ at all as I close multiple AfD discussions and frequently reply to new users - please see my edit history. With regard to Tulpan64, one can clearly see these were AfD nominations concerning the same article, both discussions were included in the Russia-related list and both of them indeed had common voters, not only Tulpan64. I have initiated other AfD discussions and have never used canvassing or sock puppetry to achieve a certain result (example). Moreover, I’m not anyhow connected with the subjects of the nominated articles and thus have no benefit in using sock puppets to viciously trigger some outcome.
2. Once again, I have no access to the technical evidence, so my main argument is: why would I use multiple accounts for these purposes, considering the quality of my mainspace contributions, my behavior patterns and editing patterns in general. I honestly don’t see how these alleged sock puppets may be beneficial for me or helpful in achieving my aims on the project. Suggesting that every case where I immediately deal with vandalism or disruptive editing somehow proves I’m a sock puppeteer is quite absurd. This case, for instance, is very similar, should we count this anonymous user as my sock puppet too? I ask that my contributions and interactions in different namespaces are examined more thoroughly.

Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not explain why these editors were editing from the same IP address using the same computer and editing the same articles. Yamla (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Technical note: @Yamla: Excuse me if I'm wrong, but why did you review the {{checkuserblock-account}} unblock request? Both template and instructions explicitly state that administrators must not review these requests. Juliette Han (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:CheckUser block notes that I must not loosen or remove the block. WP:CUBL also notes that I am not permitted to undo or alter a checkuser block. I did not do these things. If any checkuser has a problem with me declining checkuser blocks, they (not you) are more than welcome to discuss the matter with me. --Yamla (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: My note starts with Excuse me if I'm wrong. Was this (not you) are more than welcome necessary? Was it helpful? I don't think so. Juliette Han (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: I based it on the following quote from CAT:UNBLOCK: Administrators also must not review any requests or lift any block marked {{checkuserblock}}; other unblock requests which should be left for consideration only by CheckUsers are range blocks, and those concerning blocks for sockpuppetry. There was no intend to reproach you whatsoever. Juliette Han (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The advice that the checkuser team has historically given administrators is that it is OK for non-checkusers to decline requests to lift checkuser blocks without consultation, but a consultation would be required if an administrator seeks to grant such a request. The advice on the CAT:UNBLOCK page doesn't appear to align with established practice, so I apologize for the confusion there. At least from a procedural standpoint, Yamla's decline was not improper in this case. Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Re:Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juliette Han (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See User_talk:Juliette_Han#Unblock_request.

• "these editors were editing from the same IP address using the same computer" - I use a network with an IP address of the provider and I use more than 3 different devices to edit Wikipedia on my account, so I don't know how 'the same computer' argument is actually established. I can't elaborate on that, especially given that this may be used as a blind reasoning. I asked to examine my contributions, editing behavior and patterns, and that was ignored.
• "editing the same articles" - neither of these users edited the same articles as I did, I've just checked their contributions. That's plainly a lie.

I ask that my reasoning is truly addressed. Juliette Han (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

With regards to I don't know how 'the same computer' argument is actually established - we don't explain that to users per WP:BEANS, but suffice to say that whilst this is a small margin for doubt in the case of Gabtreats, there is a 100% device and IP correlation between this account and Tulpan64. With regards to neither of these users edited the same articles as I did - that's purely an attempt to wikilawyer around the wording of the statement, and is untrue to boot. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Juliette Han, please do not edit reviewed unblock requests. If you have further comments, either make them below the unblock request or make a new unblock request. creffett (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Sorry, I thought that I was not supposed to edit outside the template.  Done Juliette Han (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Decline reason reply:


WP:BEANS makes no sense with regard to my sentence. Moreover, I stated I can't elaborate on that, especially given that this may be used as a blind reasoning - the point was I wanted administrators/checkusers/etc. to examine the other side of this issue, namely my contributions, editing patterns and behavior that contradict the logic of accusing me on the grounds of ‘100% IP correlation’. I have never used this account and I see no cause why would I blatantly deny it if I did. I just don’t like allegations without an open discussion.

I said that this is plainly a lie because editing same articles and closing AfD discussions are somehow very different types of interaction. I can see no connection here - there are hundreds of edits where I immediately revert or respond to vandalism or disruptive editing. Where’s an extensive interaction that may show this is not a coincidence, which it is? Tulpan64’s vote was explained in my first comment, which is for some reason being ignored. Juliette Han (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• • Since you continue to protest, I’ve reviewed the block as well, and agree with the assessment of my colleagues Yunshui and Mz7 in regards to the technical connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Re2:Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juliette Han (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My network host has submitted data to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Previous comments: User_talk:Juliette_Han#Unblock_request, User_talk:Juliette_Han#Re:Unblock_request. Juliette Han (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am unable to unblock you. The technical and behavioral evidence is compelling, and the notion that two individuals on your IP (the only two other users on the IP) who you do not know anything about happened to visit your office/home/etc. on your static IP and independently filed inappropriate AfDs that you happened to chance upon is so far-fetched to be utterly unbelievable. Similarly, the checkuser-en-wp ticket that is referenced below only hurts your case – it is completely unbelievable and gives me the impression that you are repeatedly and intentionally trying to deceive the community. I understand that you must be disappointed to be blocked from editing, and for that I am sorry. I believe in second chances, as do most members of the Wikipedia community. I have reviewed some of your contributions and I am grateful for the time and effort you have put into Wikipedia. However, this is not the right way. You're wasting our time and making it impossible for us to trust you. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you're going to need to first demonstrate that we can trust what you say, and you are absolutely not doing that here. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• @Mz7 and Yunshui: see: Ticket:2020061310005476. Thoughts? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• In addition to the technical connection, there were a number of behavioral connections which informed my decision to make this block. Both the Gabtreats account and the Tulpan64 account edited WP:AFD discussions as their first substantive contributions to Wikipedia. AfD is a rather obscure area of the project to readers and is thus an unusual location for brand new editors to make their first edits. When brand new user accounts become active at AfD and immediately demonstrate superior knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (e.g. citing esoteric policies like WP:PAID in a deletion argument, while also pointing to ruwiki investigations while having no edits at ruwiki [1]), this is a strong indication that they have had prior experience editing Wikipedia.
  In this case, the Tulpan64 account wrote a 'delete' argument [2] in support of an AfD nomination started by Juliette Han [3], and this was done just after someone else wrote a "strong keep" argument at the AfD. The same account wrote another 'delete' argument at a second nomination of the same page also started by Juliette Han [4]. Given the technical connection, it appears to me that Juliette Han either used multiple accounts or recruited someone else to make these edits in support of her position at the deletion discussion.
  In the case of the Gabtreats account, this account was created just after Juliette Han was criticized by other editors for performing certain kinds of non-admin closures of AfDs: see [5]. Immediately after Gabtreats was created, the account made two clearly deficient AfD nominations of two extremely notable topics [6][7]. This gave Juliette Han the immediate opportunity to perform a non-admin closure on both discussions [8][9] (one of which was closed no more than four minutes after it started). Given the technical connection, it appears to me Juliette Han used multiple accounts or recruited someone else to submit these disruptive AfD nominations in order to have the opportunity to prove that she was capable of correctly using non-admin closures.
  For these reasons, I am unconvinced that Juliette Han is unrelated to Gabtreats and Tulpan64, and I would decline this unblock request on this basis. Additionally, for the same reasons, the claim that they are two completely unrelated visitors who just so happened to be editing from the exact same shared network seems quite improbable, and in the alternative, it does not rule out the possibility that Juliette Han coordinated with multiple people to submit these edits, which is also a violation of the sock puppetry policy. Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Mz7's comment

For Tulpan64: honestly, it appears to me that this is an experienced user on the Russian Wikipedia that voted under a different username on the English Wikipedia. For instance, in my defense, I’ve never substantially edited Russian Wikipedia (my 70 edits there [10] are mostly vandalism reverts), let alone participated in any investigations or knew about paid editors - this of course requires a deep understanding of what is going on in the language-related division, and I didn’t have such an understanding. If I had known all of those details, I would have included them in my nomination - what is the actual reason to create accounts or recruit someone to make an extra point, given that the AfD discussion process is not a vote. Moreover, my suggestion that this user (someone under a different username) comes from the Russian Wikipedia is based on the fact that another user from this division participated in both of these AFDs - Wikisaurus. Bearing in mind that the same article had been deleted three times [11] before my nomination occurred and their participation (Wikisaurus and Tulpan64) was synchronous [12][13], it seems that the subject of the article drew some attention on the Russian Wikipedia. But that has nothing to do with my editing patterns or my contributions to the project in general. Furthermore, I had no direct interest in this AfD - my second nomination was majorly motivated by the fact that reasoning of the original ‘keep’ voter was quite biased.

For Gabtreats: I had multiple debates with other editors where I might have felt discouraged or underrated (one of which - very similar - is linked in my first unblock request), but I have never used meat/sock puppetry or canvassing to ‘make sure everyone sees how good I am’. Not only this heavily contradicts my individual values, but also conflicts with what I am trying to do on Wikipedia. I’m not only an AfD closer; I’ve reviewed GA, expanded articles, improved citations or supporting media, tried to help other users where I can, etc. I have simply no need to create accounts or recruit someone to disrupt the project in order to then revert this disruption - you can at least take a look at the amount of vandalism/disruptive edits I’ve reverted to come to the conclusion that two or three more reverts/closures would not make the total picture much better. Two more aspects in my defense: 1) I’ve closed other AfD discussions as ’speedy keep’ (examples: [14][15]), 2) Gabtreats used wrong AfD templates [16] and indicated they ‘tried to follow instructions’ [17], which makes me believe they were interested in this particular field of Wikipedia, but were still inexperienced.

With regard to improbability of this situation, not to disclose anything, let's just say that network's location is quite popular among residents and guests due to different cultural events and mass activities.


My overall point has not changed: I have no personal connection with these users and I did not create these accounts. I hope that my contributions and behavior patterns, along with my interactions with other users in general, somehow prove I would not use sock- or meat puppetry for the alleged purposes. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Side effect

Somewhat over a week ago Juliette Han initiated a GA review on Magnificat (Torri), which under normal circumstances would have been over by now:

• Is there a possibility that Juliette Han would be given a special dispensation to conduct that review, e.g., either by writing their review comments here (to be copied to the review page by someone else), or by being unblocked with the express condition to do nothing else than completing that review (their good behaviour if everything goes well may then possibly even be taken into account w.r.t. their editor status)?
• If not, is there some perspective when this current unblock request would be finalised?

The GA review is in limbo: it can't be closed in a normal way, and as long as it isn't closed no new candidate to conduct the review can come forward either. I'd also deplore if the current review would be closed on procedural grounds, without the article even being assessed: it is difficult enough to find a reviewer to do such assessment – if the GA candidacy would be rejected now, without there being much changes to the article after such rejection (while there are no assessment suggestions), I don't see who would come forward to conduct a GA review on the same article in the future?

@Mz7, Yunshui, and TonyBallioni: any suggestions on my little problem here (which indeed is minor compared to an editor getting blocked, but on the other hand is not an issue that would solve itself afaics)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Important note: I feel quite depressed because of this situation, so I would in any event wait until my comments are reviewed and all possible means of discussion are exhausted before making any substantial contributions to the project. I just don't feel OK to be somewhere in between. Francis Schonken, I hope you understand and are not angry with me. Thank you. Juliette Han (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No hard feelings: on the contrary, thanks for starting the review last week. Was just looking for a practical way out w.r.t. the review having gotten in limbo as a result of things that have no relation whatsoever with the GA candidate, nor with its initiated review. I worked hard to get that article in shape: this limbo is not something the article deserves. So I asked the other editors aware of the situation whether they can suggest a way out. If you don't want to be part of that way out, I can understand that. But I want to move on: a GA review should be finished in about a week, and we're well past that, without the initiated review having delivered anything tangible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I had no prior knowledge of these circumstances as you can imagine, so the only practical way out I see is my request being reviewed soon. I didn't mean that I'm not willing to end the review, it was that my current indefinite block is not something I can harmonise my editing with. I'm sure the situation will be cleared up in the short term. Juliette Han (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: WP:GANI provides specifically for scenarios where the reviewer is not able to complete the review: A reviewer who starts a review has committed to complete it in a timely manner, but in rare occasions a reviewer withdraws due to illness or other reasons. In such cases, the first step would be to contact the reviewer. If this does not resolve the issue, then a new reviewer is needed. In order to find one, edit the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page as follows: Increment the |page= parameter (e.g. from "page=1" to "page=2"), and change the |status= parameter from "status=onreview" or "status=onhold" to the blank setting "status=". You can also remove the transclusion of the former GA review from the article talk page if you wish, but this is not essential. Save the page. A bot will reset the nomination in its same position in the queue on the GA nominations page. If the reviewer has not made any comments other than opening the review, it may be better to request a G6 deletion of the review page and start over. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't seen that. Sorry, should've looked whether there was a procedure that would address the case. Will wait a few more days to see where this unblock request goes, and will then proceed along the lines described in the procedure unless something else pops up first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Another editor has offered to take over the GA review, and that seems to settle the "little problem" talked about in this subsection. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Re3:Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Juliette Han (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My previous unblock request got stuck. See User_talk:Juliette_Han#Re2:Unblock_request and subsequent comments. Juliette Han (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Don't do this. This is abusive. You get one open unblock request at a time and if your previous unblock request isn't being reviewed, it's because nobody has found it sufficiently compelling to act upon. Yamla (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Proposed deletion of File:Lead the Way by Mariah Carey sample.ogg

The file File:Lead the Way by Mariah Carey sample.ogg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficiently supported by critical commentary about the song, which can be already understood without the sample. May fail WP:NFCC#8. Also not part of the revision reviewed for the 2012 GA nomination.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:New Rules sample.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:New Rules sample.ogg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)