User talk:CPCEnjoyer

My talk page:

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

April 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Have you edited with other accounts on Wikipedia? If so, you need to disclose them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SWC

Wikipedia is not the Simon Wiesenthal Center. But you don't really care about Wikipedia being neutral point of view, do you? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what Azov Battalion claims they are, they have been described as neo-nazi by reliable sources. MPSCL 14:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problem with Azov Battalion being called a neo-nazi organisation, feel free to complain to the WP:RS included in the article and get them to withdraw or correct their story. Wikipedia cares about neutral point of view, that is why it only reports what reliable sources claim. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EE DS notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are now saying there is a 'High level of IP vandalism'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Roman_Protasevich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.250.41.104 (talk) date (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, though I do not think it will get approved, I haven't seen any IPs vandalizing. You were right in reverting him, citing a 2015 RfC as a reason to remove neo-nazi classification from a neo-nazi group is, in my opinion, dishonest. Also you should sign your comments using 4 tildes ~~~~ CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR and WP:BLP

Please note that you are close to violating 3RR rule on page Roman Protasevich. Also note that such your edit [1] is a misinterpretation of cited source (BBC article). The BBC article does not say "Neo-Nazi". It says "which has been accused". This is not the same. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Roman Protasevich—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: Thank you for this message, however if you look closely at the source, you can see that the quote is cut short, without any proper explanation, hence why I added the cut-out part. Perhaps look at the source before making rash reverts like this? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made this revert during a WP:Huggle session, and the message you received was auto-generated. However, However, I should have chosen an option which would dhave generated a message mentioning WP:BLP. Generally, mere accusation is not noteworthy enough for mention in Wikipedia. In this case, WP:BLPPUBLIC may apply. Even there, though, the guidance is: " noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.". I will let your unrevert stand for now, and regular editors of that article can handle it one way or the other. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Xi Jinping. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Des Vallee (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required. per WP:3RR. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its interesting that you seem to understand how BLP works when editing Xi Jinping but not when editing Roman Protasevich[2]. Selective use of wikipedia policies and guidelines to push a POV will get you blocked, please follow the rules at all times. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a WP:3RR policy, not a BLP policy. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required. What did you think BLP stood for? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

19:19 26 - this is a revert of this edit
13:20 27
12:31 27
16:25 27

Please self-revert. Also note that Morning Star is a poor source for that: see it in Perennial_sources, My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This user is trying to get you banned as a Sock puppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MPSCL

Hey sockpuppet

Not sure if you're my sock or if I'm yours, but it isn't a great look that we edited RFE/RL at the same time. It's funny though lol. BSMRD (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the sockpuppet investigation and getting live updates of what you're doing, it really is. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Hello. I've noticed that you've recently added a new userbox to your user page that relates to anarchists. I believe that the inclusion of the userbox is likely not in line with WP:POLEMIC, a guideline that covers content on user pages. I'm respectfully asking that you please remove the userbox from your user page, in line with this guideline. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for bringing up this concern, I didn't think it would be considered offensive, but if you feel it's offensive to you I can remove it. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On tone

Saying this here rather than on User talk:Mikehawk10 since it no longer concerns them: I didn't mean for my tone to come off as patronizing. My intention was to emphasize the importance of not doing this sort of thing.

I'm usually pretty good at telling when someone is cruising for a block. It's a sense one picks up after a while. A lot of people don't like to point it out to editors who are, perhaps because it can come off as a threat. But I'm not an admin, and I don't do ANI, so I'm really just giving my analysis. Age + edit count + number of warnings + block proposal at ANI a month ago that was 4-1 when it was archived = You're not in a great situation. That's not me being patronizing. Just facts. Well, experience-based analysis of facts.

So yeah, as I indicated there, the best way to avoid a block is to just stick to regular content edits. Do check out CAT:CN. I find it quite rewarding to find an unsourced statement that's been in article for 15 years, do some quick Googling, and then either find the source that's been missing all along, or determine that it fails verification and remove it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 11:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Please do not follow my edits as you did here and here. You never edited these pages before and followed my edits in a matter of hours to revert them. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Please adhere to Wikipedia policy when editing, adding unsourced content, especially into WP:BLP articles can be reverted without being classified as WP:FOLLOWING, as per Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.

However, I would like to ask the same of you, please do not go around editing articles where I contributed and removing content without explanation. Not only is this against policy, but this is a textbook example of hounding. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was last warning. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appreciated. Keep in mind that I also mean you following edits by other contributors, not only me. Personally, I think that following edits by other contributors can be OK, but everything depends on what exactly you do. For example, this is not good, because you are making a a personal accusation on an article talk page, and you can not support it. This is the reason I asked you not to follow my edits. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you not to follow my edits, and here you are again [3],[4]. Note that you refused to discuss, but resorted to edit war (2nd diff), and that the motive was there until very recently. I also do not understand what your edit summaries suppose to mean in these edits. Probably the best page about genocides in WP is Holocaust, and it does provide the motive in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I have edited the talk page of the article way before you and have been watching the Uyghur genocide article, it is you who went on multiple articles I edited and removed content without explanation.

Second of all, the difference between your edit and the holocaust article is the fact that the latter provides actual motive, not a consequence. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As clear from the diff, you followed my edit, specifically to revert it [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree. In addition to three examples above, you also did it on yet another page [6]. Again, this is page you never edited before. Right? My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to Wikipedia policy when editing, unexplained removal of content can be reverted without being classified as WP:FOLLOWING, as per Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that you following my edits and reverting them was completely justified? My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from an article without providing a valid reason is grounds to have your edit reverted, sorry.. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The valid reason was provided in my edit summary. I take your response as a confirmation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you followed me here [7] to revert this my edit [8]. That page you did edit before, however based on the diffs above, you specifically targeted my edit which did not cause objections by anyone else. Note that my edit was not a revert of anything, and it was explained in edit summary, although too briefly. What I did was leaving only the essence of the criticism/the argument (someone "criticized station's reporting as unbalanced") and removing strong wording that was not particularly informative. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not my fault you chose to edit an article that I follow. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do it because of my SPI report? My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed content without explanation on the page I follow ever since I edited it in April, I do not understand why you are surprised you got reverted. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean that specific revert (it would be OK by itself), but the whole thing with following my edits. Did you do it because of my SPI report? My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not, I already told you numerous times why I reverted you. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CPCEnjoyer, it seems pretty clear to me that you are following My very best wishes around, and it seems pretty clear to me also that this is done to get under their skin. You claimed that for the Uyghur genocide you were there first (on the talk page), but that's not true: your opponent edited it in 2020 already. So, time to stop, please. This counts as harassment. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: My apologies, I did not look as far back as 2020, however the assumption that this is done out of an attempt "to get under their skin" is insulting. I am merely correcting the user's violations of policy and unexplained removal of content, which as I gather, does not fall under WP:FOLLOWING. Or am I wrong? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your resilience in the face of adversity. VikingDrummer (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info

Believe me, there is no point in continuing this revert war.[9] If you are not convinced of the answer that the user gave you, ask the opinion of some admin.--Mhorg (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've seen at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, I think we can safely assume that if the committee wanted to limit participation of non extended-confirmed users in RfCs, they would have made it clear, like in the page I linked. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert of this stuff, but I think that asking some admin will make you resolve the matter, for better or for worse, without incurring penalties.--Mhorg (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I read more?

v. [10] and [11], where can I read more on these "Kamikaze Sock" accounts from the past?VikingDrummer (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that linking to stuff like that would fall under WP:PROBLEMLINKS, however these are all related to the eastern european mailing list, which has been covered not only on Wikipedia. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It required some searched, but I found it.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

Do not describe other editor’s good faithed contributions as “vandalism” as you did here [12]. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then please provide clearer edit summaries in the future, "who cares" seems like something a vandal would write on an edit summary, if you need help, check out this article. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol this is gonna be a very quick ANI or AE thread whenever someone gets around to filing it. You're just blatantly trolling at this point. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Do you believe "who cares" is a valid reason to remove 1k bytes of content? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the page three times, I have not in any way breached WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period ".

Assuming that I [...] intend to continue reverting repeatedly. without any probable cause is not assuming good faith and I would like to ask you to refrain from posting such slanderous stuff on my talk page.

Thank you, CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is to let you know you’re at three reverts and that one more will breach 3RR. If you had breached 3RR instead of a warning you would be addressing an edit warring noticeboard case. If you have a problem with what the standard template says thats above my pay grade, I did not modify it in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do address it to everyone who has three reverts, for example My very best wishes and Volunteer Marek, otherwise it looks like targeted harassment. Thank you, CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the sort of harassment Drmies just warned you about and by Volunteer Marek do you mean the editor you reverted using the edit summary “WP:VANDALISM”[13][14]? Because that clearly wasn’t reverting vandalism if you’re trying to go for that particular 3RR exception. You are aware that you weren’t reverting vandalism, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not get defensive, I am sorry if that seemed like an attack, I was just warning you what your actions look like.

To address your comment: Because that clearly wasn’t reverting vandalism if you’re trying to go for that particular 3RR exception. I did not claim any "exception"? I said you singled me out of three editors who have also reverted three times, which is true.

I judged that according to WP:VANDALISM, (specifically: The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. ), the edits seemed to be unexplained removal of content and the edit summary was "who cares", does that not sound like vandalism? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does that sound like vandalism? I don’t see anything that could be construed as malicious which is the key to the concept. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: edit summary was "who cares".

Now, can you explain solely targeting me out of three people who have reverted three times? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw disruptive behavior and I warned the relevant editor, if I had noticed another editor I would have warned them. You aren’t being targeted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavior being my third edit restoring content that is fine per WP:PRIMARY policy? You ignored 7 reverts by Marek and four by My very best wishes to strike me with a warning that I "might" break 3RR. However, all is fine, you noticed now so you can go off and warn them then. Thank you, CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to warn them you are more than welcome to, I don’t take actions like that at the behest of others on principle. Yes, disruptive behavior like mischaracterizing edit summaries to explain your claims of vandalism. You said “unexplained removal” but it appears to have been well explained by the time you reverted... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, I forgive you for specifically targeting me, though I wish you were at least honest.

You said “unexplained removal” but it appears to have been well explained by the time you reverted "Well explained" meaning citing an essay, WP:UNDUE and POV, removing 3Kbytes (including a whole section)? I guess that just means we have different standards as to what an explanation means. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well explained as in ""“Who cares” means that it’s either WP:UNDUE or WP:CHERRY picked (seriously, you have sources whose whole point is THE OPPOSITE of the text that is being placed here) or just simply POV. Please get consensus for inclusion.”” not “Who cares.” Or did you not mean to revert that one? Even if you aren’t satisfied by the explanation that doesn’t mean you can claim one hasn’t been provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed it was not provided, I said it sounded like vandalism. If an IP removed a whole section from an article with "who cares" along with citing a few unsubstantiated claims of policy breach they would get reverted instantly for vandalism, please do not try to pretend that this is something extraordinary. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’re missing their last point "Please get consensus for inclusion.” which per WP:ONUS ("While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.") appears to be the right call. I also wouldn’t call an IP which used that edit summary a vandal, its simply not the clear cut sort of thing you need in order to label something as vandalism. That being said context matters, and in context you should have absolutely known that what you saw wasn’t vandalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the right call, you can't come into an article and remove long standing content and claim there is no consensus for it being there, what consensus determined that the information "does not improve an article", a consensus of two people who have never edited the article before? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the edit summary on the diff you reverted was not “who cares” it was "“Who cares” means that it’s either WP:UNDUE or WP:CHERRY picked (seriously, you have sources whose whole point is THE OPPOSITE of the text that is being placed here) or just simply POV. Please get consensus for inclusion." [15] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CPCEnjoyer, I made a few comments on the talk page of that article, but didn't want to see too much there about your individual edits. So please let me make a few things clear here. "Vandalism" was just not OK: the edits you reverted were not vandalism, and NOTHING in WP:VANDAL warrants that, especially since you were dealing with an editor (or editors) who have plenty of experience here. I also think you were too quick on the draw in those reverts, and the talk page discussion made it clear that, well, the edits by Marek and others were in line with policy and met with consensus very quickly. So what I really want to see is less haste and more consideration, and what I really don't want to see is edits that look like retribution to me: edits that suggest you're following your opponents around to other articles. Because that's hounding, and hounding is harassment, and harassment is handled in a couple of ways, including one-way interaction bans, blocks, and blocks from certain articles or article spaces. I really don't want to have to consider those options, and you have it within your power to make sure I don't have to do that. You may not like what Marek was doing on this or that article, but he is actually an old hand at this, and knows his Wikipedia policies pretty good. That doesn't mean he's always right, but it does mean you have to take his edits and arguments seriously--and you know, because it's been pointed out a few times already, that there was much more to all his edits than "who cares". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edits that suggest you're following your opponents around to other articles. Because that's hounding, and hounding is harassment, and harassment is handled in a couple of ways, including one-way interaction bans, blocks, and blocks from certain articles or article spaces. Sorry you feel this way, but if you are talking about me following them to RFA, I think you are missing some things here; I did not follow anyone to RFA, in fact My very best wishes and Volunteer Marek have edited it seemingly because I commented on the SPI request where I brought up WP:EEML, look here and here, two editors who mostly edit Eastern European wiki suddenly edit this article and remove long-standing content.

That doesn't mean he's always right, but it does mean you have to take his edits and arguments seriously--and you know, because it's been pointed out a few times already, that there was much more to all his edits than "who cares". I admit I may have over-reacted by calling those edits vandalism, perhaps I shouldn't have been so hasty, so I apologize. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community Sanctions Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

By obligation to notify users concerned in the ANI case, I hereby notify you that There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On stonewalling

Considering Mikehawk has attempted to get sanctions against me over a minor slight, has supported sockpuppet allegations against other editors who took different positions than him, and has been filibusturing for a number of edits so pages like RFA can be squeaky clean when the source is brought up on other articles, do you think we have a legitimate case of WP:GAME? Paragon Deku (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally think that this might be the case, I believe we are biased and I wouldn't, with a clean conscience, make such a claim. However, I find that the "tactics" used in RFA were quite dishonest and I plan to make an WP:AN entry about the ECP & the other editors' actions. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we're biased, which is why I've avoided trying to boomerang when dragged to ANI and haven't brought it up anywhere like there, but it is frustrating to say the least. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading that ANI I can definitely tell why you feel that way. Though I think you shouldn't be "scared", for a lack of a better word, of any sanctions from that ANI, a good-faith mistake shouldn't be something you get sanctioned for. I would suggest you withdraw the RfC pending new draft, however I don't know if it would be proper to do right now, especially because it is the subject of an ANI discussion. Might want to ask an admin about that. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFA RfC

If you have the time could you draft a new RfC and try to communicate what I was trying to do more clearly? The guide on making them frankly kind of sucks, and I can’t make beads or tails of all the magic unspoken rules of formatting. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I will take a look tomorrow, but in case you wanted to see an example of an RFC draft, here is an RfC draft regarding lead of Azov Battalion article. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on difficult TAs

Hey there,

Allow me to dispense some hard-earned insights into the key to "surviving" in difficult TAs: keeping your calm. If you need to take a break, take it. If you need to review your comments with fresh eyes, do it. There's a delicate balance to what we can and cannot say, and you should always keep in mind the consideration of how the community might read your words in the future - especially when dealing with difficult editors. The vast majority of editors are fine: some are opinionated, some aren't very nice, and with most you'll disagree at one point or another; but those disagreements will help hone the text - and that's what we're here to do. Really problematic editors are a few; you can't do much to change them (and frankly neither should you try), but you can try to deal with them as they come - with as much patience and cordiality as you can possibly muster, with a strict adherence to WP:POLICY, and with a dash of hope that one day the community will wake up and deal with them. Until that happens - try to enjoy yourself, and don't get worn out.

Cheers! François Robere (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[16]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translations from other Wikipedias

Hi CPCEnjoyer, and thanks for your comment at WP:ANI. You expressed surprise that a user "mistakenly thought it is okay to just translate an article from another wiki". Just wanted to let you know that it is not only okay, it is encouraged. There is a community of about 300 foreign language Wikipedias, and Wikipedia encourages translations of articles from one Wikipedia to another. There's the Wikipedia:Content translation tool dedicated to assisting editors in doing translations, and many support pages such as WP:Translation and groups involved in translation. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My surprise was worded a bit vaguely, what I meant to say was that translation of some articles could lead to issues with sourcing, as not every wikipedia has the same standard. I hope my comment in the ANI did not come off as rude or sound like I am opposed to translation. But thank you for the comment, it's awesome that this is going on. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]