User talk:Levivich: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:57, 4 August 2021

Help!

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Humor disclosure requirement

Hi Levivich—your edit here goes against the humor disclosure requirement. In your summary, you advise having an RfC, but the requirement is already the result of large-scale RfCs, and per WP:CONLEVEL, they take precedence over any discussions hosted at a local level. If you want to challenge the disclosure requirement, the place for that would be the next large-scale discussion, but until that is changed, the existing consensus stands. I'm going to revert back to the status quo, and I hope that can be the end of it—this is a silly thing to argue over. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, I like you, but sometimes you need to cool it with the sheriff bit. Among other things, it's not clear that essay's a joke. E Eng 17:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: So your stance is that it's not clear that a page titled Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man is humorous? Every other humor page on Wikipedia where this has come up has agreed to play by the rules and properly disclose. It's disappointing that a group of editors at this page is wielding their clout to demand immunity—enforcing the requirement inconsistently shows disrespect for consensus and opens the door for chaos on April Fools' Day. But if editors here insist on behaving irresponsibly, so be it; it's not worth the effort to fight. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, I am saying that it's not clear that it's humorous, any more than the page titled WP:Lies Miss Snodgrass told you is humorous; it's frequently cited in ANI threads. And the context of that RfC was explicitly April Fools. Clearly not all project-space humor is labeled as such, nor should it be. E Eng 19:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like the thrill of walking right up to the edge of what has to be and what doesn't have to be marked as humor and spitting out my lame-ass jokes untemplated. Knowing your target and audience, taking the risk...kinda fun. Also in so many cases pointing out that it's humor flattens the joke. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Between 2006 when WP:SPIDER was written and today, a humor template and/or category has been added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed ...we're only up to 2008 here, but after that, there was almost ten years of calm, then... added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added (x2), removed, and removed ... which brings us to Feb 6, 2020 (I probably missed some additions/removals along the way).

Then, on April 1, 2020, WP:AF2020 began. The next day, Sdkb added a proposal (WP:AF2020#Require disclosure of jokes on the Main Page, which ultimately did not gain consensus) that the {{humor}} template be required on the main page, citing WP:AF2013#Require all jokes other than the main page to be tagged, which, as E points out above, was an RFC about April Fools day, and did not in any way create any kind of requirement that all jokes be tagged across the website, every day.

On April 25, 2020 Sdkb added the {{humor essay}} template to WP:SPIDER. It was removed. At the ensuing talk page discussion, at which JzG, Johnuniq, and Fish and karate participated, nobody seemed to agree with adding the {{humor}} tag.

On April 27, 2020 (while both AF2020 and the WP:SPIDER discussions were underway) Sdkb made this change to WP:HUMOR: Humor that is counter to the truth or verifiability of an article used in Wikipedia requires clear and concise indicators. Many editor and administrator hours have been spent resolving disputes where humor has been used intentionally, or used as an excuse (backpaddle) to circumvent the complaint against the editor making the text edit, as decided by the community in a 2013 RfC.

The {{humor}} template did not appear on WP:SPIDER for over a year after that. But on April 13, 2021, Waylon111 asked at the WP:SPIDER talk page if the essay can be moved from the humor category to the civility category (a good idea, IMO). Sdkb then created the redirects WP:Humor disclosure requirement and WP:HREQ and added it as a shortcut to WP:HUMOR, then responded to Waylon that It's clearly a humorous essay, so yes, it needs to stay in the humorous essay group. It's also in clear violation of the WP:Humor disclosure requirement, so per community consensus that cannot be overridden at a local level, it needs to have {{Humor}} or another indicator added.

On June 27, 2021, Sdkb added the humor template to WP:SPIDER again, with the edit summary "Adding mandatory humor disclosure template" (with "mandatory" linked to WP:HREQ), and then changed the above-quoted WP:HUMOR language (the target of WP:HREQ) from an article to a page, thereby purporting to create a requirement that every page be tagged with {{humor}}.

And that, ladies and gentle-editors, is how one accomplishes a WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Today, I was reading WP:SPIDER and was surprised to see on its talk page the reference to a mandatory requirement that joke pages be tagged with {{humor}}. How could such a rule have existed, and I, of all people, not know about it? So I investigated the history. Then I removed the {{humor}} tag. And Sdkb added it again linking to HREQ, and E removed it, and Jr8825 added it again. I don't know about you, but I think this is all quite humorous, and so we should probably tag my talk page, as I wouldn't want to run afoul of any requirements... @Sdkb: please clean all this up and put things back the way they should be. Thanks. Levivich 22:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd self-revert, but then that would indicate that I'd read any of the above information on this talk page, which would be a clear violation the page's official policy, which clearly states that I should "ignore the talk page and just keep reverting". Would someone be so kind as to revert me so that the integrity of the WP:LEW is preserved? Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 22:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I already used my WP:1HAHA for today. Levivich 23:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should thank Sdkb for reminding us that the world is a big place full of different people. I look forward to the continuing quest to label every page as required by policy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humor disclosure. The very words make my blood run cold. E Eng 03:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Levivich,

regarding CutePeach's AE case, while I believe that the result of the case is fine, I have thought about all the concerns voiced about my behavior in the matter, and I'm not really interested in all the drama associated with especially the involvement-related concerns. This is why I chose a 24 hour block instead of implementing a topic ban (which would, to my surprise, have been broader than it is now), and this is why any further DS actions from my side in any area will be limited to protecting pages and notifying users from now on, possibly forever. I mostly view WP:A/I/PIA as a way to apply extended-confirmed protection to pages that need it.

And I'm interested to see what happens to the entire DS process over the next years. The entire "notices"/"awareness" system may need improvement, as the notices claim to be entirely neutral yet seem to be usually treated as warnings, both by the notifiers and the notified.

I might copy similar messages to the talk pages of other users who have voiced similar concerns, but it was originally written here. This is because your message, contrary to others before, really made me reconsider my entire approach to AE (and perhaps adminship) so strongly that I felt this message was necessary in addition to the lapidar 0815 "Thanks" I had sent before.

Sorry for the unpleasant experience and best regards,
Tobias Frei 04:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving this message, Tobias, and I'm sorry for the unpleasantness, too. In my attempts to be brief I come across as more terse than I really mean to, but one of your best qualities is that you are always very approachable and easy to talk to, even when it's some random guy on the internet complaining about a block :-) Levivich 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing more valuable than honest feedback by someone correctly upset. Tobias 17:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, do you think Cutepeach might also be correctly upset? The reason you gave for banning her was a diff of her striking a comment and apologising to another editor. To me it just looked like a witch hunt and you participated in it. I am restoring her edit proposals you deleted as my own. --Francesco espo (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology requested for your unfounded accusation of tag teaming

You've made an accusation in your edit summaries here that I am "tag teaming" with User:Volunteer Marek, citing WP:EEML. Since EEML has been inactive for 10 years or so, unless you have evidence that it is back, or that WP:TAGTEAM is being otherwise violated, I expect an apology for the false accusation which is in violation of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Interaction Analyser (Piotrus, Volunteer Marek) is where the evidence is. Do you really want me to diff out all the times you and VM show up on the same "side" of the same disputes? I doubt it. If so, tell me how many diffs it will take before you agree it's tag teaming and I'll see if I can gather that many. Levivich 05:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gee... such evidence. Volunteer Marek 06:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) The difference between the two lists shared here is that one is mainly of talk pages and project processes (AfD) across multiple topics and interests, where you might expect highly active editors to convene, whereas the interaction list Levivich shared is centred around the article space of one particular topic, and is longer with noticeably tighter time intervals. What it does suggest is that both of you (VM & P) are emotionally invested in the topic, where is never a good thing for an encyclopedist. Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also matters what the content of the interactions are. Just because two editors edit the same pages, even in close temporal proximity, doesn't mean they're tag teaming. It could also be hounding. Or coincidence. That's why I'm asking for a number of diffs before I collect diffs: I don't want to show 3 and they say it's not enough, then I show 5 and that's not enough, then 10 is not enough, etc. I want to know how many is enough to rebut coincidence. Let's all agree on a yardstick first and then take measurements. Levivich 19:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I don't see what this link is supposed to prove; I and VM share some interests and occasionally edit the same articles, sometimes within a short amount of time. Since we are all active editors who have been here for years, every few weeks this will happen. VM already posted a link showing that you did exactly the same with Icewhiz - and surely this is just a coincidence, right? How about Editor Interaction Analyser (Piotrus, Levivich)? Are we tag teaming? :) How about we check the interval&overlap between you and VM? This kind of "data" shows nothing. Again, I repeat, for the second time, the request for you to apologize for making an offensive claim (I'd also ask for it to be striken, per WP:REFACTOR, but I don't think edit summaries can be adjusted like this). I've already cited the relevant policy rationale (Wikipedia:Casting aspersions); an experienced editor such as yourself should know better than to misstep like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, tell me how many diffs of you and VM showing up on the same "side" of the same disputes it will take for you to agree it's tag teaming, and I'll see if I can gather that many. We can apply the same numerical threshold to me and any other editor of your choosing, and see what's up. Levivich 19:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I have a whole collection. Ping me if you want to browse and I'll have my assistant set a date. François Robere (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough

I've had enough drama for the month, but I have no choice but to address this. Here and here you accuse me of promoting a hoax and of "minimizing the controversy". This is because of one minor copy edit I made to an article over the course of FIFTEEN YEARS of its existence, out tens of thousands of edits I made, out of thousands of edits that have been made to that article.

I am asking you to strike those accusations. They are very serious and they are 100% false and baseless. This is the kind of matter that I simply cannot not address and if you don't strike I will file a report. I've had enough of this crap. Volunteer Marek 05:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah where would I ever get the idea that you and Piotrus tag team? Anyway, I'm tempted to strike it just to avoid a report which will waste a bunch of good people's time (also some bad people's time, like mine), but no, I disagree with your characterization of the edit in question as mere copyediting and I stand by my characterization of it as I wrote it (which you only quoted parts of). I don't think what I wrote was uncivil or otherwise against policy; I think it's fair criticism of an edit. Levivich 05:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if you want, I'd probably jointly request an EEML2 arbcom case with you. There's already an ANI and an ARCA open, why not an ARC? Levivich 05:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to your false accusation regarding supposed tag-teaming. You're getting confused here (not surprised since you've been making personal attacks left and right). I'm asking you to strike the accusation that I promoted a hoax. Volunteer Marek 06:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm serious, please strike it. Volunteer Marek 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you promoted a hoax, but nevertheless I struck that your edit "thereby, albeit in a small way, helping to perpetuate this hoax." [1] Levivich 06:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuated, promoted, I'm in no mood for semantic games. The other one too please. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What other one? I'm not going to strike "minimizing the controversy," because your edit changed "An extremely controversial fact remains" to "A remaining controversy centers around," and that's minimizing the controversy, literally. Levivich 06:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are alleging ill intent upon my part and even if you strike the explicit "perpetuated" part, you are still insinuating it. Just the fact that you're trying to focus on a single edit out of thousands on an article that's been around for fifteen years and pretending as if this one minor edit means something other than a simple copy edit is itself a personal attack and a false WP:ASPERSION. Please strike the whole thing. Volunteer Marek 06:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't allege ill intent, I alleged ill effect. I alleged your intent was to minimize the controversy, but I alleged it with a diffs which means it's not an aspersion. It might be a false allegation, but I've already said I'll AGF that you didn't know at the time you made the edit that the hoax had been debunked (ie, there was no "controversy" at all, it was just a debunked hoax), and if you say you had no ill intent, I'll of course accept that too, but I never thought (or said) otherwise. Anyway I'm done here, I won't be around much for the rest of today (UTC) so if there's anything else you want me to strike I won't be able to get to it until tomorrow (UTC). Levivich 06:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this comment till now. And I did bring up your behavior at ANI [2]. Volunteer Marek 06:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 ::{{u|Levivich}}, I don't see what this link is supposed to prove; I and VM share some interests and occasionally edit the same articles, sometimes within a short amount of time. Since we are all active editors who have been here for years, every few weeks this will happen. VM already posted a link showing that you did exactly the same with Icewhiz - and surely this is just a coincidence, right? How about [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Piotrus&users=Levivich&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki Editor Interaction Analyser (Piotrus, Levivich)]? Are we tag teaming? :) How about we check [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Levivich&users=Volunteer+Marek the interval&overlap between you and VM]? This kind of "data" shows nothing. Again, I repeat, for the second time, the request for you to apologize for making an offensive claim (I'd also ask for it to be striken, per [[WP:REFACTOR]], but I don't think edit summaries can be adjusted like this). I've already cited the relevant policy rationale ([[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions]]); an experienced editor such as yourself should know better than to misstep like this. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 06:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 :::As I said above, tell me how many diffs of you and VM showing up on the same "side" of the same disputes it will take for you to agree it's tag teaming, and I'll see if I can gather that many. We can apply the same numerical threshold to me and any other editor of your choosing, and see what's up. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 19:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
+:::: {{re|Levivich}} I have a whole collection. Ping me if you want to browse and I'll have my assistant set a date. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 19:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 == I've had enough ==