User talk:The Wordsmith: Difference between revisions

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 9 as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 8 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 /Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 9 months and 12 days.

Status: Busy.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gamergate_draft#Request_for_comment Rhoark (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: Consider me notified. I'll keep an eye out for bad behavior, but I decline to offer an opinion on the proposal. In addition, your mention of TRPOD at the top is a borderline personal attack, and as such I strongly suggest you remove mention of his username. You don't want civility issues distracting from the substance of the RFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would not have expected you to comment. The mention of TRPoD is simply an accurate reporting of the sanction that implemented 30/500, but I removed the name per request. Rhoark (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Right Stuff (blog), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that alt-right media hub The Right Stuff has a core principle of ethnic nationalism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Right Stuff (blog). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Right Stuff (blog)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Crash Override Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is clearly a page related to Gamergate. What would you think of applying Template:pp-30-500, as a DS? I am concerned that rather new users are constantly advocating for the claim that some of the original Gamergate victims joined in doxing of Gamergate supporters, based on what are claimed to be chat logs. If such a claim is to be accepted, it is better if it is judged valid by experienced editors. For example, check this edit summary by a person restoring the doxing charge who has 19 edits. The page was fully protected by User:MastCell between Sept 14 and 21. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to apply it to the article page (not the talkpage), but first I need to look into the history and issues surrounding the article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: After checking out the recent history and monitoring edits, I see only the single diff you posted that the semiprotection did not prevent. We don't apply 500/30 unless semiprotection is clearly insufficient, so I'm not going to do that here just yet. If it becomes a bigger problem, I'd be willing to revisit that idea. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you may have expected, I am not satisfied with the close of the AE filing against Sean.hoyland. I am not sure what the appeal procedure is. Where can I appeal this decision? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of possible appeals. The first is usually asking the imposing administrator (me, in this case) on their talkpage to reconsider, explaining why you think I made the wrong call. I'm open to a reasonable argument, as long as it is concise and well explained. Decisions may also be appealed to (in order from easiest to most difficult) WP:AE where overturning requires a consensus of uninvolved administrators, WP:ANI which requires consensus of uninvolved editors, or to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main reasons I would appeal the close is because it does not address the issues for which I made the filing, namely a deliberate 1RR violation, unexplained reverts, and outright refusal to discuss said reverts. Each one of these is a very serious issue on its own, and together they are not only very problematic, but go against the very principles Wikipedia is supposedly built on. Please reconsider your close and let me know what your decision is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that there were indeed two reverts, that much is clear. However, enforcing administrators have the prerogative to use discretion in deciding how to enforce things like that when there are mitigating circumstances. The consensus of administrators in this case is that the BLP grounds (shaky but not 100% wrong) and the obstructionism by ES is sufficient to justify not sanctioning for 1RR this time. If it happens again, this request will certainly be used to establish a pattern. Regarding the refusal to discuss, it could potentially be problematic indeed and indicative of a problem. However, as a non-administrator and regular editor, Sean is not under any obligation to explain his actions to anyone who questions them. He explained his motivation at Arbitration Enforcement, and most admins found his explanation not worthy of sanction.

After taking some time to review my close, in the absence of new evidence I decline to overturn my own closure of this case. The other options for appeal that I mentioned are still available to you, should you wish to pursue them. Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. I find the idea that an editor doesn't need to discuss their reverts unless someone drags them to AE to be completely contrary to both common practice and the spirit of this project, not to mention that it was deemed disruptive in previous AE cases. That they can declare that they refuse to discuss with people they are ideologically opposed to at AE, and that elicits no response whatsoever from the admins is, well, I don't even know how to describe that. I will be appealing the close at ANI. Other than yourself, who should I notify when I do so? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing the decision politely; that is a rare thing in Arbitration Enforcement and it is appreciated. I understand that you brought this request in good faith, so I wish you well at ANI. In addition to me, you are required to notify Sean.hoyland as well. It is also somewhat common, but not mandatory, to notify the other administrators and participants in the original request. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I also think you dealt with the request in good faith and I given the same result (which I was expecting, considering the comments the participating admins made), I would have appealed regardless of who the admin who closed the request was. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an ANI thread here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing the Sean.hoyland AE. Could you please post a note about the warning on Epson Salt's page? I'd rather it didn't just roll into the AE archives. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

 Done The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you closed the Nishidani AE with a warning to everyone who participated. I don't think that is fair. I posted a general comment and suddenly I'm warned? If certain people are to be warned, then it ought to be explicit. I don't think it's fair to punish everyone who merely posted at an AE. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not punishing anybody, just sending out an advisement to all participants that further incivility will not be tolerated. The problem is deeper than just one or two users. If you're not uncivil in the PIA topic area, then it doesn't apply to you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and I agree being civil is or at least should be one of the most important pillars that in my opinion is often not seen as a priority. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday October 16, 2pm: CommonsLab / Open House NY Photo Contest + Hackathon

On Sunday, October 16, Wikimedia NYC will host a multimedia tutorial, workshop, and hackathon focused on Wikimedia Commons and the work processes for cultural multimedia wiki-projects. The CommonsLab is the concluding "upload party" to the Wikipedia @ Open House New York Weekend photo scavenger hunt, and an accompanying Wikimedia Commons multimedia hackathon. The event will take the form of a modified unconference, with sessions for photographers/creatives, editors/writers and hackers/software folks! Sunday October 16 CommonsLab / Open House NY Photo Contest + Hackathon 2:00pm - 8:00 pm at NYU ITP, Tisch School of Arts, 721 Broadway, 4th Floor Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] And RSVP now for our next event after this, focusing on Latin American art and artists: WikiArte Latin American Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (Saturday October 22, 2016)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hi, Wordsmith. I just noticed the Kamel Tebast AE here and was a little surprised that you had closed it so quickly, after only one uninvolved admin had commented. Not that there's anything wrong with you blocking on your own admin discretion, but first blocking and then fairly promptly unblocking after an email discussion with the user[1] worries me a little. Other admins and users may have felt differently. I don't do ARBPIA myself, but I'm thinking of reopening the AE discussion, for the sake of providing space for more input from other admins and users. What do you think? Also, I'd be interested to see the e-mail discussion you mentioned. Bishonen | talk 16:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Ordinarily I wouldn't have closed so quickly, but the BLP vio was clear and pretty egregious. He directly compared a former President of the United States to the Nazi Party, on his biography, using sources that were not even close to up-to-snuff. When he appealed via email, we had a discussion about his lack of understanding of policy and I genuinely believe that he accepts responsibility for his actions and that his apology was sincere. I've sent Kamel Tebaast an email asking for permission to forward the email chain, but if he declines then I won't publish without permission.

Clearly he meant to be speaking to you alone, so of course you must ask him, yes. But these things are better in public, and I hope any undertakings KT makes can be made public, perhaps in a written-for-wikipedia style, so that more eyes can see what, if anything, he's undertaking not to do again. I say this because I noticed he was just recently forgetful of the responsibility he had previously taken for his edits, compare [2]. Bishonen | talk 03:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

KT has declined permission to forward our correspondence, so I'm afraid that's that. I will say that he has read the relevant policies, understands why his actions were wrong, and acknowledged that he needs to earn back the community's trust before appealing the topic ban. I have a good faith belief that he was sincere in his intentions. He has also agreed to consult myself or another trusted administrator if he has questions about policy, which he has done since being unblocked. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday October 22, 10am: WikiArte Latin American Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

Join us for a full Saturday of social Wikipedia editing at the Museum of Modern Art (drop-in any time!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to the lives and works of Latin American artists. The WikiArte (Wiki Arte y Cultura Latinoamerica) edit-a-thon is a global campaign to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Latin American arts and culture and to counter geocultural systemic bias on Wikipedia. Featuring an opening Artists' Panel at 10am, with Sol Aramendi, Sharon Lee De La Cruz, and Marisa Morán Jahn, to be moderated by Rocío Aranda-Alvarado, curator at El Museo del Barrio. The Museum of Modern Art and Fundacion Cisneros/Colección Patricia Phelps de Cisneros are uniting with international allies to focus on the lives and works of Latin American artists, architects and designers. With keystone events scheduled for October 22 in New York City and other cities throughout the month (Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Caracas, & others), the campaign aims to further similar goals to Art+Feminism. All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. Introductory training on the basics of Wikipedia editing will be given throughout the edit-a-thon. Please bring your laptop and power cord; we will have library resources, WiFi, and a list of suggested topics on hand. Saturday October 22 WikiArte Latin American Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (meetup) (eventbrite) 10:00am - 6:00pm at The Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Education and Research Building at MoMA, 4 West 54th Street (between 5th and 6th Avenue) Please note that this entrance is one block north of the main 53rd Street entrance, closer to 5th Avenue Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hi The Wordsmith. You blocked me because of WP:BLP, and your subsequent unblocking of me was addressed. The unfortunate edit for which I was blocked had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli topic, and my record in that area has been clean since my original topic ban. Therefore, I respectfully request that you remove my topic ban. Thank you. KamelTebaast 02:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your situation, but I'm going to need more than a week and a half of good behavior before I'm willing to lift the ban. Your appeal is declined at this time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you did not address why I was topic banned. Again, considering that my block was not topic-related, at this point, it appears that your sanction is either punitive or content related. Especially considering that you did not sanction MShabazz, who most agreed violated the 1RR, and the same for Sean.holyland, who also violated the 1RR. KamelTebaast 04:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained to you exactly why you were topic banned. Your serious BLP violation was a textbook example of disrupting to prove a point as part of a content dispute in the PIA topic area, which was pointed out to you in our email exchange. You acknowledged to me that you needed to earn the community's trust back, and that takes a little longer that we've seen. My decision stands, for now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wordsmith. Obviously, I understand the ramifications of my BLP violation, which I acknowledged. It has been one month. Can you please remove the topic ban? As you know, there are a number of safeguards in place and enough warnings against me should I violate policy. Thank you. KamelTebaast 02:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith? KamelTebaast 17:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look through your recent contributions, and inform you of my decision in a day or so. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. KamelTebaast 18:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response, I've been busy with work. After getting a chance to check your recent contributions, I see you seem to have been contributing positively and stayed far away from BLP violations. I'm not sure if this is the best course of action, but I'm going to cautiously agree to lift the restriction, to take effect once I take care of all the red tape. However, consider yourself on notice that if I or anyone else has to reimpose sanctions (in ARBPIA, BLP or any other topic area), I will not be endorsing any appeals. Please take this as a learning experience to work collaboratively with your fellow editors (of all POVs). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. See here for what was obviously going to happen as soon as you granted that appeal. I really wish you had let this be appealed at AE instead of directly to you, but I guess that was your call. nableezy - 21:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, straight back to useless disruption. Zero^talk 00:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Wordsmith. I wrote a simple question to an administrator (Zero), and included a thread on which I based my question. Subsequently Nableezy responded (I'm being kind), then Nishidani responded (I'm being kind again), and now I see that someone deleted all of those edits from the record, including all of their edits. To make things even more murkier, Zero, in place of where the original edits were, wrote about himself having two accounts and that the Arbitration Committee several years ago judged it to be proper. Further, someone apparently disabled my ability to look at Zero's dif. Lastly, as I've seen in the past, when something is deleted because of COPY or Vandalism, or other policy concerns, note is made of it. Here, nothing, only the action gone forever. I followed one thread on Wikipedia where an admin referred to another editor as "Jewboy", and other extremely offensive words were said, yet, even that was not deleted from the record. This needs to be brought into the open, especially if an admin has overstepped his authority. My question and edits did not violate policy, and I'd like to know what can be done to address what happened, and to have my edits and their edits restored. Can you please help clarify what direction I can take in order to clear this up? Thank you. KamelTebaast 04:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is in the hands of the Oversight committee. Zero^talk 04:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eager to learn how my simple question and the subsequent edits was cause for removal based on non-public personal information; potentially libelous information; copyright infringement; blatant attack names on automated lists and logs; or vandalism. How can I follow up on this? KamelTebaast 04:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can wait until the Oversighters decide what to do about it. Zero^talk 04:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday November 12, 12-4pm: Women in Science Edit-a-thon @ NY Academy of Sciences

Join us for a full Saturday of social Wikipedia editing at NY Academy of Sciences (drop-in any time!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering Women in science for their second annual edit-a-thon!. This event also coincides with the year-long celebration of the Academy's 200th Anniversary and a Women in Red online campaign. Beginning and experienced Wikipedia writers are both welcome, and there will be helpers on hand to assist those new to editing the encyclopedia. Saturday November 12: Women in Science Edit-a-thon @ NY Academy of Sciences Time: 12:00 pm - 4:00 pm (drop-in anytime!) Location: New York Academy of Sciences. 7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich Street (between Vesey and Barclay Streets in Manhattan), 40th Floor You must also register at the NYAS site here: www.nyas.org/WikiEdit2016 Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] And RSVP now for our other event this Sunday in Brooklyn, focusing on Indigenous communities and social justice: Indigenous People's Justice @ Interference Archive Sunday November 13, 2016, 2:00- 6:00 pm (drop-in anytime!)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Wordsmith.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to the discussions you had with EEng about his userpage before deleting it, and the WP:MFD or other WP:CONSENSUS that his userpage should be deleted? Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not discuss it with EEng prior, and I speedily deleted it under G10 as a Attack page. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff decided that "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." As you know, BLP summary deletions are summary for a reason, and do not require consensus or prior discussion. Procedure is to delete, put it for review, and restore if consensus supports restoration. If EEng wishes to restore the non-polemic parts of it, I have no objection to that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wordsmith.

Thank you for you mediation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikiszlsmall, where with User:BU Rob13, we had an issue with the word "xenophobia". Subsequently, I have gone off reading about the word, its meaning, its use-in-practice, and alternatives.

Wikipedia should avoid coming even close to xenophobia, but which I mean having or displaying an aversion, or rejection of foreign (actually, non-English) contributions, and collaborations. I observe a degree of such xenophobic behaviour in Wikipedia deletion processes, which I recognise as an unconscious bias. En.wikipedia is the "English" Wikipedia, and so, logically, everything that is "not English" does not belong? WikiMedians (as opposed to WikiMedians - hmmm, there's a burr there) must object to that. The foreign language Wikipedia's are part of the project, and they are lagging. Improvement of foreign Wikipedias by translation of English articles is arguably the biggest jobs remaining. Therefore, we should make especially welcome multilingual editors and facilitate collaboration of editors across Wikipedia's of different language. This is why I often reject "foreign language" as a deletion reason, if it relates to userspace of actual or potential multilingual editors, as do userboxes such as Template:User wikiszlsmall.

So that's where I was coming from.

Unfortunately, as you observed for me, "xenophobia" is often used as an emotive word in personal attack. I guess it is due to "xeno" being a funny sounding word thus grabbing attention, and "phobia" by similarity catching the common emotion of the word "homophobia". "Homophobia" has crossed from the literal meaning of "fear"/"aversion" into "hate" and "vilification". OK, so "xenophobia" might be a word used more carefully, or avoided? If so, how?

The antonym is xenophilia. That would be too far the other way. We don't need to actively go out seeking to love foreigners. But we should be openly, enthusiastically, welcoming of multilingual, multi-language Wikipedians.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Purely non-English templates don't belong in the English Wikipedia. This isn't about nationality or race or anything. It's about the fact that this is quite literally the English Wikipedia, and so editors expect to find ... English. I'm certainly not saying that non-English sources, articles, and other items don't offer value – they certainly do, which is why we translate them into English for use on the English Wikipedia. If you ever write a memoir, I will expect to find no two consecutive pages in the same language, so as to prevent it from being xenophobic. It's about an ability to communicate using a common language, not hatred toward those who speak other languages. Setting all that aside, this personal attack that you will not rescind is the latest in a stretch of incredibly shitty things this week. In the past 2–3 days, I've had to take one of the admins I respect the most to ANI for a slew of nonsense - which I can't get a single uninvolved administrator to even comment on, witnessed AE collectively lose its mind by blatantly disregarding severe BLP violations because they happen to be directed at Donald Trump – putting me in the position of having to defend a man who wants to treat me like a second-class citizen, had to deal with editors who think they can discard any TfD outcome they don't like again, for what feels like the umpteenth time, and now been called a xenophobe. This isn't worth the stress on top of what I've got going on in real life.

As for how to avoid the word, the how is simple. You don't ascribe malice to an action that can be perfectly explained with common sense. I'm baffled that you don't understand how this crossed so many lines. You've lumped me in the same group with neo-Nazis and members of the Klan. I'm gay. Both of those groups would prefer I be dead. They actively advocate for violence against me and others like me. I doubt you can possibly know how it feels to be lumped in as having the same values as such people by someone I respect. How dare you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I did not call you a xenophobe, that reading of it was unexpected. Sorry. I'm sorry you have had a bad week. I agree with you about the Trump stuff. Why don't we drop this, and see if we can write up some acceptable D* CSD criteria next week? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After the week I've had, I don't expect to be around much for a while, at the very least. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Clarification request (November 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Wordsmith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday December 3: Contemporary Chinese Art Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim

On Saturday December 3, 2016, in conjunction with a global campaign, the Guggenheim will host its fifth Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon—to enhance Wikipedia's coverage of modern and contemporary artists from Greater China. The event will cap off Wikipedia Asian Month, an online campaign dedicated to augmenting Asian content on Wikipedia throughout November. New and experienced editors are welcome. The event will include a training session for participants who are new to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia specialists will be on hand to provide basic instruction and editing support. Editors are invited to view the exhibition Tales of Our Time following the event. The Guggenheim aims to raise awareness of the artists featured in the Tales of Our Time exhibition supported by The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Chinese Art Initiative, and build on the model of campaigns like the Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Guggenheim: Women in Architecture, Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Guggenheim: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa, and Art+Feminism. Saturday December 3: Contemporary Chinese Art Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim Time: 11:00 am - 3:00 pm Location: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. 1071 Fifth Ave, Manhattan. Enter at the 88th Street entrance via the ramp at 88th Street and Fifth Avenue. RSVP: on Meetup.com or on Wikipedia Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

This AE request was put on hold for a month and has recently been reopened. Your name is already in the admin section from the October discussion, and you may want to take another look to see if your position is affected by the newly-filed material, especially the response from User:SageRad. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a suggestion about imposing 0RR plus a one edit per week restriction for the topic area. I have explained the relevance of that on the AE page. Instead of focusing on the details of what we don't want (e.g. arguments involving accusations of Stalinist, or just uncivil behavior), if we consider the problem from the other end, i.e. aiming at perfect edits, then it's clear that you should limit the number of edits. If you can only make one edit to the article and one edit on the talk page per week, then you change the nature of the talk page edits from a conversation that can go off the rails and degenerate in uncivil behavior, into something more similar to writing an article that aims to get as much support as possible. If you can't edit anymore for one week there, you have to make sure that whatever is said is convincing to the other editors. Insults are obviously not going to work in such a setting. Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look at your suggestion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I can see of the block log, the block is for 31 hours instead of one year. Perhaps that was a mistake? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. Fixing that now

This request might be ready to close, but since you are one of the admins who already knows this editor, we should wait until you have a chance to look at Nableezy's answer to your question. It looks to me that User:Kamel Tebaast has a strong POV which he controls only with difficulty. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: With all due respect, my editing has been solid with no edit warring or disruptive editing. You (and it looks like The Wordsmith) are accepting the words of two editors who, as you know, are not impartial and fall distinctly on the side of anti-Israel editing. That is unfortunate. I am perfectly capable and willing to open this case up wider to show the details of edits in question, Nableezy's recent violation of WP:HOUND of me, and Zero's wrongful use of admin privileges in order to suppress solid edits. But that is now what this is about. This is only about an editor who filed a gotcha complaint within 10 minutes of an admitted mistake that I would have self-reverted had I been given the chance. Nableezy did that in order to remove me from Wikipedia because I am a distraction to his POV. KamelTebaast 20:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Nableezy's answer. I'm leaning towards agreeing with the case presented, but I do want more input from other uninvolved admins. I see a lot of the usual ARBPIA suspects opining, so I would like more outside opinions before deciding unilaterally. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Note that "Zero's wrongful use of admin privileges in order to suppress solid edits" is a false charge. What happened is that the Oversight Committee suppressed edits on my talk page at my request. The fact that any editor's text needs to be oversighted is a pretty bad reflection on them. Zero^talk 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You suppressed simply because I asked you about operating two accounts, all based on yours and Nishidani's edits. It's going to come out, but your inference that I made wrongful edits (worthy of suppression) is more of your pattern of manipulating the line of honesty. Until now, as you know, there has been no reason given for the suppression, and your last edits indicated that it is under review. I'll be contacting the committee to have the suppressed edits taken off. In any case, this is just more of your straw man and smoke screens. KamelTebaast 23:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revealing what appears to be part of the oversighted information. "It's going to come out" looks like a threat to me. Are you aware that editors must at least pretend to collaborate at Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find your comment that "editors must at least pretend to collaborate at Wikipedia" a bit ironic, considering that the entire complaint was based on a 10-minute revert and filing on something that I surely would have self-reverted. Please check your partisanship at the door. KamelTebaast 00:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check my partisanship? In a thread about your editing reported at WP:AE? That is full combat mode. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recovering from my procedure and will be offline for about a week. Upon my return, I would appreciate a chance to respond to any further complaints made against me. Thank you. KamelTebaast 16:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. KamelTebaast 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope everything medically went as well as can be expected. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, John Carter, for the kind sentiment. Unfortunately, I'm only accustomed to a lot of negativity whenever I see an edit, it is wonderful to see such a human and touching thought. In the meantime, I'm better than I was, not as good as I hope to be. Again, I greatly appreciate your edit! KamelTebaast 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As you were the administrator who closed the AE proceedings and issued the warning to TRM, I'd like to draw your attention to some recent issues that I believe should be addressed. In no less than 24 hours from your closure, it appears that TRM has continued to engage in inappropriate behavior. He has made personal attacks towards myself, including: not to mention his utter abject recalcitrance in redacting his accusations of lying ... To err is human, to completely reject any responsibility for false accusations is rogue admin, Mike will just use IRC and find an Arbcom/Mike-sympathetic admin to do the dirty work behind the scenes, Get him to write an error-free DYK, that would be a miracle. It is Christmas after all., and equating my warning and block to lynching and character assassination.

TRM's uncivil behavior has extended to DYK when another editor asked him a question and he responded in a belittling fashion: I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?. It was followed up with: Impressive that you found such an appropriate yet shit article. You must have shares. Usual "belittling" caveat applies, although in your case, I couldn't give one, two or three fucks! Just kidding, obv!!!!!!!!! and No-one gives a fuck about the main page any more Martin. You know that.

Finally, TRM has made insults towards some of the arbitration committee candidates: Hilarious, thanks. That someone who doesn't really edit Wikipedia and didn't answer the questions posed didn't come last, sums it all up perfectly! and Spectacular result. No wonder we trust Arbcom to understand what we do day-to-day around here!

I am asking that you take a look at TRM's behavior and action it as appropriate. Mike V • Talk 00:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Some of these diffs are just allegations of administrator misconduct. While I believe they are incorrect allegations, we shouldn't bar any editor from reporting someone to ANI due to a mere allegation being deemed "belittling". On the other hand, some of the DYK comments and the constant addition of "Of course, if that's deemed "belittling", my unreserved apologies." to the end of his comments are an actual issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to anyone raising a question about another's conduct. However, I do object to the manner in which it's conveyed. Mike V • Talk 01:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the current AN case, I consider it to be wholly inappropriate for you to be even commenting on The Rambling Man at the moment, Mike V, let alone trying to engage someone who is directly linked to the AN case. Why not grow a pair of bollocks and apologise for the way you've behaved rather than try and stir up some more shit? Cassianto^Talk 01:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my comment is inappropriate. You and others have encourage me to seek input from other admins in regards to TRM and here I am doing just that. I do object to your continued use of personal attacks towards me and again I ask that you stop interacting with me in this fashion. Mike V • Talk 01:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've all asked you to say sorry, but we don't always get what we want, do we? Cassianto^Talk 01:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done no such thing than to ask you to "seek input from other admins in regards to TRM" -- diff please? Your comment here to the AN filer is inappropriate inasmuch that this is an active case and your silence there is deafening. Rather than man-up and go there to say sorry, you're continuing to grind your pathetic axe elsewhere. Cassianto^Talk 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was in reference to your support of the proposal. Mike V • Talk 01:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Mike V responded at AN before initiating this thread. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]