User talk:Muboshgu

This is Muboshgu's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57Auto-archiving period: 14 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Muboshgu}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hello, I noticed that you helped to edit Bob Glanzer and Isaac Robinson's pages after they died from coronavirus. I am wondering if you would like to also help with Reggie Bagala who has also recently died from it. - Jon698 talk 2:41 10 April 2020

As you have edited the article, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, I am alerting you to a vote. You can vote Here Elijahandskip (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it. I see theories about Ukraine and the 2016 election, but no theories about the "Trump-Ukraine scandal" FROM 2016. The background section also suggests Trump had long known the conclusion of the Mueller Report, which also seems implausible. MAYBE he's just a very perceptive visionary, but he DID stare at the sun, fail to close an umbrella and lose a billion dollars in bad wagers, so I doubt it. There must be a simpler answer here? 142.51.204.154 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump campaign began spinning the source of the Podesta hack in 2016. The background section of that article includes that Manafort suggested it was the Ukranians, rather than the Russians. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are too many "Trump allies", "Ukraine scandals" and definitions of "conspiracy theory" rolled into one at this article, and with Trump facing Biden instead of Clinton now, the complex timeline of which foreign cyberpower did what to or for which party's associates and when just gets stickier the more it's retold. Thanks for trying to unravel it, but I'll leave it alone as something beyond my grasp for now. If you ask me, American politics would make a lot more sense if the people elected honest judges to make the big decisions in government, including nominating a new president whenever the old one dies or quits. Maybe by 2040, cheers! 142.51.204.154 (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muboshgu - Yes, I promise that we will work on our draft. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIT2017 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WIT2017, okay. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 72 hours, @Suffusion of Yellow: reverted two very similar edits to the Wikipedia article on "political corruption" that were obvious vandalism, both written as if the current US presidential election was over, and the recent revelations in the Biden-Ukraine scandal "ended Corrupt Joe's chances of being elected President," and he lost the November 3 election by a landslide. These two cases of obvious vandalism were by User:Grayindie and User:Indanon.

Does the Wikimedia Foundation currently have anything like a "vandalTraceBot" that could do something like the following:

1. Once invoked, the "vandalTraceBot" could identify other recent changes by a suspect user and present them for manual evaluation by a human in reverse chronological order.
2. The evaluator would be asked to rate each edit on some scale with levels like "substantive", "minor, not vandalism", "edit farming", "questionable", "questionable and without a reference", "change citing an apparently irrelevant source", and "blatant vandalism".
3. After an evaluation had been recorded, the user might then be informed of similar evaluations by others, whether the edit had been reverted, and optionally the current status of the article and passage in question.
4. The "vandalTraceBot" could also optionally look for other other users using the same IP address and other IP addresses and anonymous edits from any of those IP addresses and possibly related IP addresses.
5. The tracing effort of each potential vandal and IP address would be scored, so it's easy to identify users and IP addresses that actively work against the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation.
6. A record of each such trace would saved for review by a Wikimedia administrator and / or a committee of users, who volunteer to do this kind of work. The most blatant perpetrators of vandalism can be blocked end their biased not-quite-vandalism edits could be prioritized for review.
7. To help document the impartiality of this audit process, this evaluation should follow standard blinded experiment protocols: People who volunteer to be evaluators would be asked to evaluate more than one user at a time, with at least one having been reported and at least one other selected at random. This data analysis could also help estimate the rate of undetected vandalism as well as evaluate the reliability of reports of vandalism while also helping improve the quality of Wikipedia.

If a capability like this currently exists, how can I learn more about it? If you don't know of any such capability, what do you think about creating such?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DavidMCEddy, I think such a tool could be incredibly useful and have no idea how one would go about creating it. There are pages for bot requests or you could discuss it at the Village pump. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidMCEddy: FYI that user has been going at it for a while. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fishguyen. Any help in stopping them is appreciated. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joscack just made [a similar edit, reverted 32 seconds later by @Suffusion of Yellow:.

I just copied a minor revision of the above to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)# Evaluating vandalism allegations and a vandalTraceBot? Thanks for the suggestion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muboshgu,

You deleted our company's page (Zebpay) with the following note: 18:56, 10 July 2020 Muboshgu talk contribs deleted page Zebpay (Expired PROD, concern was: notability not established for yet another bitcoin exchange)

I am the Chief Marketing Officer of Zebpay (https://zebpay.com). We have over 3 million users and are the oldest and most widely-known Bitcoin exchange in India. Two-thirds of Indian crypto investors bought their first bitcoin on Zebpay. We were founded in 2014 and have been in business continuously since then, with presences in Australia and Singapore as well. We were the first company to bring bitcoin investing to India. In January 2020 a new owner and leadership team took over from the founders.

By these criteria, we are and have been notable since 2014. We also believe we are not "yet another bitcoin exchange" but rather India's first and most widely-used. I'll be happy to provide you with further supporting evidence.

Could you please remove your proposal to delete if it's still possible? If it has already gone through then I will be creating a new page for ZebPay and wanted to let you know in advance. As a longtime Wikipedia member I have enormous respect for the work that senior editors like you perform for the world.

Thanks, Vikram — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewCapVikram (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NewCapVikram, as the article was proposed for deletion with no objection for seven days, I deleted the page. Since it was an uncontested deletion (there was no discussion that determined a consensus, I have restored the page upon request. However, I do expect that deletion discussion will take place. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part where the investigation is ongoing? Wikipedia even says so on the Biden campaign page. Right here: ^[1]Captainjackster (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captainjackster, your edit said that Hunter Biden is under investigation, and that is completely wrong. The origin of the laptop is under investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown some interest in this election which has updated info. Activist (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Activist, it's definitely a C-class now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "alleged" prime perpetrator, lawsuit defendant, is up for reelection to the county commission in 12 days. The regional paper of record outed him. I expect there will be some changes. The guy barely won election for State Senate. I expect there may be a revisiting of criminal charges and perhaps in connection with the county's water supply contract, a half-billion $ boondoggle. Activist (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Activist, it's on my watchlist. I'll try to keep an eye on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expect Sedgwick county will see his doom in 11 days. Legal action could drag on long afterward. Activist (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see I got swept up in a CopyVio clean-up, but I have no idea what it was I posted as it's in a different section entirely? Am I reading the logs correctly? Koncorde (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde, yeah you did, but don't worry! Tvaughn included text copy-pasted from WSJ, and your diff (and soilbanga's) included that text because it hadn't been reverted yet. So, I had to revdel the diffs, but you did nothing wrong and your edit is still there in the pag. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makes sense. I didn't think about the diffs. I was looking at the page and couldn't see anything missing of mine - so I'm looking at the clock reading 4 in the morning and thinking "maybe, just maybe, I should sleep because I am clearly missing something". Koncorde (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. 18:28, 5 October 2020 Muboshgu talk contribs deleted page Lesla-Lar (Expired PROD, concern was: The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and [[W) Three weeks later: [1] It's a wonderful life, full of surprises. :-) IKhitron (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IKhitron, are you aware of how WP:PROD works? An editor can propose an article for deletion, and if it goes uncontested for seven days, an administrator can delete it. That's what happened with Lesla-Lar. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand it was a joke? I even added a smiley. And sorry for the missing section name. IKhitron (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IKhitron, no, I'm not that good at picking up sarcasm with just text on a website. I didn't notice the smilie there to give me that hint. Oops. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...there's a "one revert in 24 hours" rule at Kimberly Klacik (you've made two). May I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, I did not remember that that page is 1RR, so that is my bad. I am glad to see a discussion started. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. The discussion is a weird one. Klacik's campaign website says "bla bla bla". Then along comes a reliable source which says, "we cannot corroborate claims made on her campaign website". My concern is that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", per WP:PRIMARY, and if the only "interpretation" of the primary source is "we cannot corroborate this", then it's a sloppy edit all around and should be removed. Please join in. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

; Your recent editing history at Kimberly Klacik shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Honestly, I was not aware of this. No problem. Just don’t want to see someone in the public eye, particularly in public political elections or office being attacked by unfair means to them. I’m opting out of any involvement in this particular Wikipedia article.

I just read the Wikipedia article on protection policy, can that be applied to the whole page?

I see you’re a fellow baseball fan! What do you think of the World Series thus far? How did you feel about tonight comeback win in the bottom of the 9th inning by the Tampa Bay Rays?!

You have repeatedly reverted a well documented quote by Robert Reich and are engaging in an edit war. This quote has been properly sourced from both the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. You are your abusing administrative powers. If you wish to make suggestions, adjust or edit my content, do so in a constructive way. To completely remove a controversial and divisive quote wherein Mr. Reich has received a rebuke by multiple respected news sources is a clear indication of partisanship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason J. Stevenson (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mason J. Stevenson, and I see you have been blocked for edit warring. Next time, engage on the talk page rather than trying to ram through an unacceptable, POV edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned in the news! Here's hoping we don't face too much chaos in the upcoming week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, yes, I was happy to speak to the author and will work to ensure no fake news makes it on this site. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu vandalized my addition of additional information on Larry Krasner. He attempted to hide details on Krasner's PAC funding, and an increase in Philadelphia crime. Muboshgu argued that he is a paid George Soros wiki editor and is just doing his job. I suggested that is no justification for suppressing relevant data and vandalizing facts that paint Soros is a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:B1B5:C0D8:BCAA:79EF (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: We members of the Soros Cartel are not really "paid", per se. We are merely so entranced that we do our master's bidding out of blind loyalty. Think about it: If he had to pay all of us, he wouldn't be as rich as he is. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wookian isn't redacting other than to replace hard "bribe" with "influence bought" and similar, and has double down. I think his contribs need salting because it's impossible to even discuss the topic for him to remedy without bringing up the BLPVIO topic itself. Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde, it may be best to see if an WP:UNINVOLVED admin can address this. I want to avoid the appearance of impropriety on my part. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making threats on my user page to force an outcome regarding the controversial article in question. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narssarssuaq, it's not a threat. I'm telling you that you violated WP:1RR and I've been nice in not reporting you for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment at Narssarssuaq's talk page, warning them about 1RR at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Where did you see that 1RR was applied to that page? WP:AELOG shows 1RR at Hunter Biden but not at the conspiracy article page. I'm just curious because there's no AE log entry, editnotice on the page, or talk page template warning about it, so if it is in place those should be added so editors don't accidentally run afoul. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ope, looks like ST47 just applied it: [2]. I don't think it was in place before, but it is now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't in effect before, which is kind of surprising. I guess ECP prevented any issues from coming up until now. ST47 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad if it wasn't applied when I thought it had been. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know I'm obnoxious and disliked, but I want to make wikipedia as good as it can get when it comes to American politics. The fights I got into, I usually won and were necessary. Somewhere around half the articles were created by me. I had lots of trouble getting them there. Now, most of these bear no resemblance as to what I originally designed, and that's GOOD!!!! I've no problem with that. Thing is, is that all presidential election cycles starting in 1972 are pretty much the same and like the phases of the Moon, can be predicted.

The only major fights I got into were over one FUGLY picture of Joe Biden and whether or not Rocky de la Fuente should be listed as a "Major Candidate". What's weird with that, is that almost as soon as I lost that one, consensus qualified Rocky as a major candidate and he is up there on the primary page. I also tried to say that Trump had won those primaries that he was running unopposed in. What the heck is wrong with that?

Look, the next few weeks are going to be brutal, and we should be prepared for it. Have a nice weekend!Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]