Jump to content

User talk:Vanamonde93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnTopShelf (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 15 July 2019 (→Arbitration and Enforcement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • United States L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  • Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  • Denmark MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  • United States Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  • Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  • Ohio Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Hello my friend !

Good morning.

I contact you because I was banned from modifications on the French Wikipedia ! You'd like to know why ? Because I deleted the discussions on my own page and I put in the Infobox the flags of countries and cities, states, counties ... Some French administrators decided that it was forbidden or not recommended... Then Gemini1980 banned me... I find it unacceptable, this person uses his "power" and his fellow administrators too. I can not do anything against this. What should I do ? What can you do ?

Sincerely TH2M8S aka THOMAS TH2M8S (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TH2M8S: If you have been blocked on the French wikipedia, you need to go there, figure out what you did wrong, and file an unblock request explaining why the block is no longer necessary. Admins on one Wikimedia project have no jurisdiction on another; nobody outside the French Wikipedia can help you with such a block. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I can not find a place where I can apply. User:Vanamonde93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TH2M8S (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hello TH2M8S. I checked a bit on the French Wikipedia and I also can't see where you can appeal your block. Here, you normally still have access to your talk page and can try to contact the blocking administrator that way (on your French talk page, not here). You should try that first.
But it looks like you were blocked for a good reason. Some users asked you not to add the flags to the infoboxes, and gave you good reasons why adding them makes Wikipedia harder to use for readers with disabilities, and you answered that you were going to do it anyway. If you did that here you would be blocked too. So if you are going to try talking to the administrators on French Wikipedia, start by explaining that you know that what you did was wrong and that you will not do it again.
Best wishes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TH2M8S, Vanamonde93, and Ivanvector: Very difficult to find, but it's at fr:Modèle:Déblocage:

Pour demander un déblocage, ajoutez {{déblocage}} à votre page de discussion.

I did not see this mentioned in any article about blocking policy on fr-wiki. Poorly done doc pages. I've requested an update to their Block page to include it. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6#Unbox Therapy

Hi Vanamonde93. Would you unsalt Unbox Therapy? You were the closer of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6#Unbox Therapy and wrote, "I am personally willing to grant this, but please ask BethNaught, who protected this, first." My request nine months ago at User talk:BethNaught/Archive 7#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6#Unbox Therapy has not been answered. Would you also undelete Draft:Unbox Therapy which was deleted in April 2019 as an abandoned draft? Pinging DRV nominator Thivierr (talk · contribs) so that Thivierr is aware of this request. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, BethNaught is still active, but this isn't worth the bureaucracy, so done. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For your work on promoting Ursula K. Le Guin! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Thank you! Much appreciated. It was quite a bit of work. It's good to see you more active, by the way. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Waskom, Texas

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Waskom, Texas. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes

on this user might be merited. Also, is it just me who feels that the number of incompetent/disruptive users across Indian spheres has suddenly spiked? ∯WBGconverse 18:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying, to be certain. I'll keep an eye on the edits; at the moment, they are not prolific enough to be very concerning. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Frank LaMere

On 22 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frank LaMere, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 23:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review!

Please review Baavle Utaavle and give your feedback.Edit2Text (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Edit2Text: I do not usually write about film and television, and so I'm not a very good person to give you any feedback. At a first glance, though, you seem to need some higher-profile independent sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baaaack!!

Van, you've always given me good advice so I'm hoping you will share your thoughts again. There is somewhat of an analogy between my mental processes when I first arrive at a casino and put the first $50 in a slot machine and when I first present an argument at a WP noticeboard or on an article talk page. If I'm going to win anything at all, it will be within the first hour of arrival. If I stay longer, my chances of winning are substantially reduced. Of course, the time frame on WP is much different but it can be estimated to somewhat coincide. So...let's say I present an argument about an issue in the lead that is noncompliant with policy in hopes of obtaining an agreeable compromise to correct the problem (as a member of the LIA, I tend to focus primarily on leads). I present my argument, and based on the repsonse, it becomes obvious the issue is motivated either by politics or an agenda driven POV (which is typically determined using common sense and a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, but deny it they will). Of course, we are expected to AGF, which I customarily do based on my own naïveté.

In some situations where a highly controversial topic is at issue and the discussion is local, arguments that support strict adherence to NPOV or BLP policies may not prevail based on the numbers in the opposing camp. What I find most confusing is why the policy-based argument doesn't prevail despite the numbers...even if a single editor has challenged it? NPOV states clearly, This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. I have yet to see nor by editor consensus prevail when there is a political divide, despite the obvious noncompliance. The same applies to skeptism, depending on what side of the topic is being presented. In that situation, we have WP:FRINGE which encourages us to include all prominent views but to exercise caution per DUE & WEIGHT. WP:BLPFRINGE states: Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. That isn't happening. What's a gal supposed to do?

It just doesn't seem appropriate that my former t-ban should be held over my head for simply presenting a valid argument. From my perspective, I'm being threatened into silence for fear of being "punished". Some will suggest that I work on other topics but that neither helps me or the project when there is strong evidence of noncompliance and/or that a single POV consistently prevails. It goes against everything WP was built on. I was outed in 2015; therefore, I don't have the protection of anonymity so it probably matters more in situations where I'm involved. Criticism of WP in the RW regarding AP2, BLP, etc. reflects on me in similar ways as it would reflect on Doc James as a member of Project Med. That's why I try to do my best and work at getting articles promoted to GA/FA status...and the same with my photography on Commons. Does that make sense? Atsme Talk 📧 18:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I've seen this. I will read through and write a detailed reply, but it may take me some time; I need to work through my watchlist first. Just so you know I'm not ignoring you. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Apologies for taking this long to respond. The crux of the matter is WP:DUE. That policy requires us to present "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (I know you know the policy: I'm quoting it to clarify something). When dealing with your average encyclopedia subject, determining proportional weight isn't difficult. For instance, some time ago, I rewrote Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre; and despite it being a tricky subject, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that I have complied with WP:DUE; because the quantity of high-quality source material is such that I have read and accounted for most of it.
With our high-profile subjects from the present day, we have a problem. The quantity of source material is simply absurd, and it's inflated by WP:RECENTISM, too. Nobody can claim to have read even a substantial fraction of it. When discussing Western politics, we have a further problem; because of persistent orientalism within the academy, there are fewer broad, dispassionate, scholarly accounts of contemporary US politics than (in my experience, at least) Indian or Pakistani politics.
This leaves us with the difficult task of determining what constitutes due weight without actually reading all of the material. And in this sort of situation, consensus is inevitably going to be swayed by numbers, when most editors have some basis in policy for their arguments (you can have a policy-based argument that's still wrong; I think you can see how). Thus we end up with situations where we have text that gains consensus, despite "obviously" violating policy. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I avoid writing about American politics, despite being interested in it. It's quite possible that this answer will leave you dissatisfied; I know I am dissatisfied with the manner in which we treat the biographies of many contemporary politicians; but within our current framework, it's what we have to work with. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, V - if you'll let this sit here for a few more days, I'd like to come back and read it again with fresh eyes. I have a fairly decent memory, but it's more like taking a picture with a 35mm film camera (film has to be developed, etc.) vs a 30MP full frame DSLR. ^_^ Atsme Talk 📧 04:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I leave the archiving to the bot, and even if it does archive this thread you should feel free to resurrect it if necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bengal famine of 1943

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bengal famine of 1943. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Vanamonde93. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Bramble Cay Melomys.
Message added 21:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! When you get a chance, could you take a look at a statement I have made on the WikiCup talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, Gerda! Cwm, will read through ASAP. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Populism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Populism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • Norfolk Island Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
  • South Carolina Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
  • Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
  • United States Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Castillo Armas

G'day Van, I was just going through the Milhist A-Class reviews I've done in the first half of this year, and wanted to tell you that Carlos Castillo Armas definitely has the legs for FAC, if you want to take it there. I know you are busy with WikiCup, but I'd definitely take another look if it was at FAC. It covers a poorly-known time and place on en WP, and would be a great TFA on July 7 next year. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the note; much appreciated! I do indeed intend to take it to FAC. I may decide to try Operation PBFortune first; we'll see about that. The chief reason I'm holding off is RL commitments that are keeping me offline for most of the week. When I return to full-time activity (soon), I will certainly be sending something to FAC, and I would be happy to take you up on your offer of a review. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Andy Ngo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Ngo. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For your enormous contributions to science fiction fantasy authors and novels. Politics-related articles make a close second. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ImmortalWizard: Thank you, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better here. Finer policy-attuned minds than I are more focused than I manage to be. TLDR, so no need to reply

In reply to your request for clarification.

Sorry about that opacity. I meant that in drafting measures to deal with the class of behaviours in (b), we should be careful not to frame it so broadly that the definitions spill over to affect the class of behavior in (a). I can wear being called a 'poseur', 'arsehole', 'fraudulent', 'reactionary' and so on, as recently. It has no effect on my humour. This is not a good argument, admittedly, because in our community, there are lot of people who've never grown up in an ambiance where real aggressiveness, verbal or otherwise, was fairly common, and one learnt to read it, and cope with it.In virtual-cyber terms, there seems to be a cultural shift underway, where young people invest a huge amount of their energy in seeking endorsements of their ionsecure self-esteem, by trying to get the best out of sparring on social media with unknown voices from beyond. I would hope Wikipedia, whatever culture it develops, persists in drawing a sharp line between its practices, and those regulatory practices on social media which have no other purpose than to connect people, and provide them with an identity and pastime. Here, we work, for a common good -precise, informed, global knowledge, nothing else.

So for me, to cop snarky language just tells me someone out there is getting angry to no end, and, anyway, it's merely a comment on a talk page. Real life's full of that. I find reading even mainstream newspaper reports on the world more unnerving (for what they report, or fail to report in their coverage) than perusing animated and somewhat aggressive talk page comments on wiki. If the editor who keeps that up were to begin to trsnsfer what, to me, is innocuousfatuous and rather pathetic hostility into actually reverting article contributions with inadequate, non-policy based edit summaries, well that, in the long term, would wear one out. So, in sum, I have a fair tolerance of people who are upset at people like myself, and work off steam on a talk page. If they transfer that animosity to articles, damaging their construction, then 'that' is wearying. Because it would mean, to cite one case, that several hours reading and synthesizing abstruse articles on the chert-quartz transition in paleolithic flints, Mineng dialect terminology for the seasons in an 1831 source, and an Heideggerian reading of the 'phenomenology' of time to cast light on an ethnographic issue, would be squashed out like bug from the said article simply out of antipathy, by an editor who probably knows nothing of the topic. That is the kind of behavior that has nagged me for 13 years. (b) refers to acts by editors that damage the construction of articles according to RS and NPOV, not to acts of hostility that never translate into harm to articles.

If I made a list of (b) it would be something like this:-

The problems that wear me one out are (i) reverting with false edit summaries (ii) reverting sequentially at sight, by editors with no talk page justification (iii)WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT attitudes by those who engage on the talk page, but refuse to focus closely on the on the issues under contention; (iv) falsifying sources (v) reverting while not even glancing at the sources; (vi) taking out a source, against the RSN board evidence, which contains facts/material one dislikes, justifying the removal as 'not RS', while on the same page, leaving in sources favourable to your POV whose status as RS is equally questionable; (vii) continual recourse to the drama boards even when on several occasions, the plaintiff's evidence has been dismissed as inadequate; (viii) preemptively excising any academic book by a qualified specialist on the topic an article deals with without prior talk page discussion (ix) removing 149,000 bytes of text citing Wikipedia:Article size, thus 'disappearing' 150 footnotes and a 100 odd academic sources out of sheer civil POV pushing distaste. (rather than considering that, when you see a deep mass of carefully constructed, optimally sourced material, with encyclopedic value, you should realize that erasing it erases someone's several days of hard work, and simply roll up your sleeves and resolve the perceived length problem by transferring the contested material into sister articles).I could think of a score of others were it not for a certain fatigue at an off-wiki strenuous day. As long as whatever policy we have is drawn up by our representatives here, and reflects the complexities of various inputs, I don't think I would worry about whatever result is forthcoming.Keep up the good work

Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, on reading your remark about how frequently at the drama boards, cases of abuse have been passed over because the editor in question is considered too valuable, I realize that I simply don't know this area. I almost never read those pages except when compelled to in personal defense. So my input is pointless. My impression was that arbcom generally gets things right, that peons like myself are let off, or sanctioned, without visible favour or prejudice. Errors are made, but a good wikipedian should accept sanctions as part of the cost of working here, and not appeal them if 'convicted', but just sit them out. Arbitration is the most onerous, unremittingly hard task of all in this weird area and whatever the failings, nowhere else in the world will one get people volunteering long hours to work through endless partisan screeds and diffs in order to ensure that the project stays afloat.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Some replies, since it seems we're not disagreeing much. The problems you outline in category (b) are those that bother me too, both as an editor and as an admin trying to resolve conflict in topics I don't write about. What is especially bothersome is when bad language on the part of editor X allows editor Y to get away with the problems in category (b); this is really quite common, and is probably something you're familiar with. A related phenomenon is that of editors with an axe to grind being rude with the obvious intent of provoking a good and neutral content writer into saying something sanctionable, or at the very least tarnishing their reputation. While I have lots of respect for people who continue to be civil in the face of unremitting hostility, I think it's not always a reasonable expectation; and if we are concerned with the civility of content writers in difficult topics, we need to be equally concerned with the hostility they face.
Finally, since you mention that you are unfamiliar with it; discussions about civility typically founder on the question of what to do with a handful of editors who are a) good content writers and b) notoriously hostile and contemptuous in their attitudes to most people most of the time. These are the difficult cases I refer to (Eric Corbett is the best example, but there are others) wherein ARBCOM usually does the right thing, but at enormous cost in terms of editor time and effort, and for a problem that is patently obvious to many people concerned. Even after ARBCOM steps in, we often have reams of discussion that follow when admins attempt to enforce ARBCOM remedies. Although these cases represent a handful of editors (with substantial differences between them, too) they represent a wildly disproportionate level of community involved, and are in my opinion the cases on which the WMF is most likely to intervene; which is why we need to discuss them, too. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I should have been briefer. In summary style my concern is simply that, in drawing up better policy instruments to regulate the incivility in (b) situations, things are not so worded that we end up inadvertently straightjacketing the kind of fresh vernacular exchanges most of us use, moodily but not aggresively (a). Most cases I remember involve diffs that contain an unkind or questionable word in an otherwise straightforward attempt to argue a position. Look at several diffs and an admin might be tempted to say, 'ha. He used, an exasperated, 'for fuck's sake' one week; asked an editor to look up what 'prevarication' means; implied an interlocutor should 'focus' a day later, implying he's distracted (something he denies); said, some weeks later, 'this is silly', implying some other editor is stupid; used 'rubbish' dismissively a few days later. Ergo, he hasn't mastered wiki civility. Sanction. But, if instead of running through the diffs, one opens the section in which each diff is embedded, and sees the context, and the way both parties are arguing, much of that evidence will, as often as not, seem, if not justified, then perhaps no worse by any means than the obstructive attitude of the people whose edits those phrases refer to, people engaged in civil POV pushing. I know admins who only read the given diff. I know of admins who, for each diff, read back, and then forward, to capture the context. The results of the final call often differ. I don't blame the former, and I don't think the latter should be obliged to work that extra unasked for mile. Sorry, it's late. I've overstayed my welcome. Best Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration and Enforcement

What specifically got me banned from editing all US politics after 1932? My recent edits on the AOC article were true and reliably sourced. I did not violate 1RR as far as I know. Please let me know. Thanks. -JohnTopShelf (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Also - how do I initiate an arbitration and enforcement against Snooganssnoogans? -JohnTopShelf (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that got you banned are all listed at the discussion at AE. I will not list them again; but fundamentally, this was about a battleground attitude and a failure to comply with WP:NPOV, not a 1RR violation as such. Please note that per WP:BANEX, the only real exceptions to your topic ban are for clarifying the scope of the ban, appealing the ban, or reverting obvious vandalism and BLP violations. Defending your previous edits isn't permitted; nor is requesting arbitration enforcement under the same set of discretionary sanctions. So, requesting enforcement against Snooganssnoogans under American Politics discretionary sanctions is not something you can do while your ban is in place. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I appreciate the explanation.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way - I think I requested that AE be initiated against Snooganssnoogans in my explanation on the AE case prior to my ban being in place.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanamonde93&oldid=906382004"