That isnt something I would decide, as Wikipedia has yet to anoint me to my rightful place of arbiter of all content. nableezy - 16:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I thought about proposing that in our cabal, but I have yet to see you edit (and adjudicate) K-pop and rasslin' content. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I spend enough time on Wikipedia to get in to K-pop fights. Guess Ill fail my review at the annual overlords of Wikipedia meeting. nableezy - 02:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits by a user you previously have dealings with.
Just wondering how to go about something like this where the user goes out of their way to add their own analysis, outside of what is in the linked article. - R9tgokunks⭕ 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to ping in my comment, but I propose we do a WP:MUTUAL removal and basically delete the entire "BBC Synth issue" split-discussion I started. The issue is solved and it turned into my getting to hot-headed. It is just us in the small discussion threat, so MUTUAL is a valid option. So, would you agree to my proposal? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I want to back away from the discussion, except that ORN, since that is now a true curiosity I have now. But the main attack talk page debate, I want to drop the stick and back away from. A mutual deletion will honestly help me do that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Id prefer is you started treating these discussion pages as something other than a place to shoot the shit and started treating it like a place where grownups discuss how to improve encyclopedia articles. I dont really give a shit what you do with that section, and tbh Ive already muted your pings as I find the practice of pinging somebody to a discussion you know they are watching to be more annoying than useful. nableezy - 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16:58, 11 June 2024 (Taking content that an editor put in Wikivoice and attributing it is partially undoing their actions)
15:25, 11 June 2024 (Removing content that an editor added is undoing their actions)
Please self-revert 16:58, 11 June 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think number 1 is a revert by any definition of the term revert. Feel free to report it, but Ill be asking that you be banned from AE for making tendentious reports if/when you do. nableezy - 17:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
asked and answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To use an example from the discussion at ScottishFinnishRadishs talkpage; an editor adds "BilledMammal is a platypus". Their action is to add, in Wikivoice, this claim. If another editor comes along and then attributes this claim - "According to BilledMammal, BilledMammal is a platypus" - then they have undone the action to put the claim in Wikivoice and so have made a revert.
SFR, since I'm pinging you anyway, can you comment on this? BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that isnt a revert, that is an edit. I also do not think admin-shopping is an appropriate tactic here either. I dont think youd appreciate me pinging Ealdgyth who has now multiple times cautioned your enthusiasm for making AE reports. If you think this is a 1RR violation then go ahead report it, and face the potential for a boomerang that I think is long overdue. nableezy - 17:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, keep it civil. There is no need for personal attacks such as accusing me of "admin shopping" (and don't you think if I was admin shopping, I would go for one who hasn't recently warned me and page blocked me?)
Believe it or not, I'm not eager to take editors to AE, so I will wait to see what SFR says about whether this is a revert. BilledMammal (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging, or otherwise approaching, a specific admin for a problem is the definition of admin shopping. That isnt an accusation, thats just a fact. nableezy - 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that it is appropriate to ask an administrator to informally take a look at an issue, as an attempt at a low-drama resolution.
Are you saying otherwise, and that the only recourse is to go straight to ANI or AE when discussion between the involved editors fails to resolve a perceived conduct issue? BilledMammal (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, how about an interaction ban, with the exception that you can respond to RFCs started by one another granted you don't mention each other? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done nothing to merit a ban in any way whatsoever here, and if you impose one I will appeal it all the way to ArbCom if need be. Thats, pardon my French, bullshit. nableezy - 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) I have no issue with a two-way, voluntary unlogged IBAN; it will probably be helpful to reduce tension and drama. However, I would ask that it expires at the conclusion of the current war, and that the exception should extend to other formal discussions such as requested moves.
For the record and my future understanding, would you be able to clarify whether 16:58, 11 June 2024 is a revert? BilledMammal (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse any voluntary ban here, and if it is imposed I will appeal it. BM coming here with bogus claims doesnt mean I should be banned from reverting edits they make or responding to claims they make on the talk pages they are active, which Id hazard to guess is nearly all of them. nableezy - 17:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire dynamic between the two of you is disruptive. You'll argue with each other to no end other than the argument itself because you'll never convince each other of anything. This is the same reason I ibanned Lev and VM, and it certainly seemed Arbcom understood my intent. I imagine the same would happen here.
You don't have to respond to their claims on talk pages, there's plenty of other people who can, and it's not actually helping anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on all counts. I have not been uncivil or aggressive with BM on talk pages, and my responses to them have been cited by others. In many cases they make statements that I respond to demonstrating their position is incorrect and others agree with me. There is zero evidence for The entire dynamic between the two of you is disruptive, thats just an unsupported supposition based on what I assume are vibes. Again, if you impose an unjustified ban having been adminshopped here then I will appeal it. Do what you want, but its bullshit based on bullshit, and as Ive demonstrated any number of times I have no issue appealing poorly justified bans. I dont need to convince BM of anything when I respond to them, the point is to convince a consensus of other editors that their position is not based in fact or policy, and on several occasions I have done just that. And I would hazard to guess the reason why one of us is on board with your proposal is because they see it as being to their advantage that I am unable to do that. nableezy - 18:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I would hazard to guess the reason why one of us is on board with your proposal is because they see it as being to their advantage that I am unable to do that.
Can we please keep it civil? I'm willing to accept it because I recognize that our discussions go nowhere and instead increase tension and drama in the topic area, even when I'm trying to propose a compromise based on the sources you prefer. It's not because I think you're more effective than I at convincing other editors of your position - if you look at the current dispute, the only formal discussion resulted in my arguments convincing several other editors and a consensus forming for the position I supported. BilledMammal (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt true, we had an RFC about the infobox at the main page where your view was shot down by consensus (you edited and argued for attributing inline to Hamas-run MOH, ie this version, the RFC had an overwhelming consensus reject that view). And the RFC you reference predates discussions on the reliability of the MoH. As far as your request to keep it civil, I am. nableezy - 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for finally providing a link to the discussion you've been referring to.
Second, it found a consensus to use "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry"; option one was this version, and it used that wording. BilledMammal (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it found consensus for attributing in an endnote. The end. nableezy - 18:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current dispute is whether we should use "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry". That discussion found a consensus for the latter, and while it also found consensus that it should go in a different location from where I believed it should go that aspect doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although, this seems to be what SFR is referring to about us arguing with each other to no end other than the argument itself because you'll never convince each other of anything, and so I'll step back now. BilledMammal (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you dont want to be accused of admin shopping then yes, going to a venue where you are not picking the admin to respond would be what you should do. If you are just asking for advice then sure, but here you are asking an admin who has already given me a topic ban recently to opine on if I should be sanctioned. That is not asking somebody to informally look into an issue, and indeed you brought him here with threats of another unjustified ban. Color me surprised. nableezy - 17:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish if you think an IBAN is appropriate I would ask that you raise it at AE. I am not saying you are involved, but this situation in which a user pings you to the page of somebody you had previously sanctioned and you then impose a new sanction without any other admin reviewing the discussion or the basis is not sitting right with me. This is precisely why I objected to the pinging in the first place, and I do not think you have provided any evidence that The entire dynamic between the two of you is disruptive. I obviously have as much power to make you recuse as I do Samuel Alito, but I absolutely will be appealing anything you impose from this. nableezy - 18:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the ping goes, I get a whole lot of ARBPIA pings because I'm the only patrolling admin in the topic area. I also have your talk page watchlisted and sighed so loud I'm surprised you didn't hear it when this section popped up on my watchlist.
As for implementing the sanction, I simply don't have the time to sink into that right now. We'll see how things go in the future, but even this discussion provides a wonderful example of the two of you arguing for no reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your sigh would be better off as a written "wtf how does anybody think that first edit is a revert"? But thats just me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. As far as only one, that may have been true a few months ago, but AE is getting plenty of participation these days, enough that approaching an admin individually shouldnt be the default behavior as your talk page and AE now do have a functional difference. <added after the below comment was added> Also, you made a similar point with Andrevan once upon a time, remarking that my refuting their claims, a refutation that was cited by other editors as changing their minds about the discussion, was proof of a toxic atmosphere. It was not true then and it is not true now. The structure of this place makes it so that yes you have involved users with views that likely are as stuck in sand as the pyramids, but we also have uninvolved users reading the discussion and formulating their own views, often based on the arguments offered. And that is part of the process. Your "no heat is the correct amount of heat" view on what constitutes disruption would make that process break. Yes, involved users are going to argue. Uninvolved users are the ones that usually determine what "consensus" is based on those arguments. nableezy - 18:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"wtf how does anybody think that first edit is a revert"?
If we can consume a little bit more of SFR's time, can we get clarification on this question - whether 16:58, 11 June 2024 is a revert (whether changing to/from Wikivoice constitutes undoing the action of another editor)? BilledMammal (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for a revert, they declined, take it to AE. That's the agreement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but I imagine this can be cleared up without that drama if you can clarify whether it is or isn't a revert - if you think it is, I believe they'll revert, and if you think it isn't, I'll drop it and remember that when assessing future edits. BilledMammal (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think this is anywhere near an edge case, and I find it absurd to call that edit a revert. That is effectively saying any material may not be changed except through reverting. It breaks the entire idea of collaborative editing, instead giving an iron-clad first movers advantage to any editor putting in any material, no matter how poorly worded or sourced the material may be. I have zero issue with BM raising this at AE, but that will indeed include me asking for a boomerang sanction for tendentious reporting. nableezy - 19:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to take you to AE, and I'm not sure you want me to either given you have recently been insisting that a very strict definition of 1RR be applied to other editors, but not to yourself. Can we please just resolve this with a self-revert and move on? BilledMammal (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a straight removal, that is always a revert. And by the way, that edit still had the synth reference in the infobox (it still does for the record). So no, that did not resolve the tag. As for your request, very obviously no because my edit is not a revert, and this idea that attributing something from a combatant that was previously added unattributed is a revert is asinine. Report whatever you want to, and we can find out how things turn out from there. Im personally pretty confident that it ends with an AE ban for you, but YMMV. Like I said, I have zero issue with you reporting this. I dont have a problem self-reverting when I mistakenly make an extra revert, I do however object to being intimidated with a phony report to self-revert something that is not a revert. So no, I will not be self-reverting, and you are welcome to take that AE. nableezy - 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's pretty nice that AE is seeing a bit more activity, because I shouldn't have the amount of influence over ARBPIA that I do. I'm glad to see that changing. However, I still got a ping from another editor today to swoop in and do some adminning. There's a difference between patrolling the topic area and taking part in AE reports. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
