Kashmiri

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed

The Arbitration case to which you were a party, "Conflict of interest management", has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee requests that a new VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.
• For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.
• For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Israeli allegations against UNRWA

1. 12:47, 24 April 2024 (partial revert of this)
2. 11:35, 24 April 2024 (revert of this)

Please self-revert 12:47. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you're stretching the interpretation of 1RR beyond its intended meaning and purpose. If your argument was followed, ANY deletion, even of a single character, made anywhere on the page should count as a revert, since technically every character has been added by someone sometime. This would limit editing the page to adding new material only beyond the first deletion, which would make meaningful work on articles virtually impossible. That's certainly not what was intended by the 1RR rule, whose aim is to prevent edit wars.

I'll revert now for formality's sake and might take the matter to relevant noticeboards. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

To address your broader concerns, you may find it useful to know that removing stable content is not considered a revert.

To address your specific concerns here, I added "yet", you removed it. You undid my action in part, which is considered a revert per WP:3RR. However, if you believe I am misusing the process, you are welcome to open a discussion at WP:AE. Alternatively, you can re-implement your edit, and I can open the discussion at AE. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I see nothing about "stable content" in the policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not in the policy, but it is always interpreted as being there - I agree that it should be explicitly stated, it's another of our unwritten rules that trip up the uninformed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Vishnu Sahasranam

Ki Kashmiri,

It seems like you keep editing the Vishnu Sahasranam Page to remove the names that make up the Vishnu Sahasranam. Is there a reason for this vandalism? On a page about the 1000 Names of Vishnu (Vishnu Sahasranam) it does nto make sense for you to keep removing the 1000 Names of Vishnu.

best Akd112358 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Read the discussion at Talk:Vishnu Sahasranama. And never accuse editors of vandalism. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kashmiri,

I will call it out as it is. You are committing vandalism on the page Akd112358 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Your raising of the author’s Judaism

Hi Kashmiri, Could you please explain what you meant when you invoked that a source’s author is Jewish at Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus? Zanahary (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I responded there, not sure why brought it up here. And no, it was not about religion, I have no means of knowing anyone's beliefs; nor do I care, frankly. I simply hinted to a possible POV issue of the quoted expert. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

But what POV issue? Are you saying that her being Jewish may present a POV issue? Zanahary (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it so strange that a person's background may influence their point of view? Also, it's him I believe. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If their background was Israeli, no. However, suggesting that their Judaism influences them in favor of Israel is the antisemitic canard of dual loyalty - I hope you will be more careful around that in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Another one who tries to conflate ethnicity and religion. Can you please read my responses above before commenting? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand - regardless of whether you are talking about their Jewish faith or their Jewish ethnicity, suggesting that they are biased because of it in relation to Israel is the antisemitic canard of dual loyalty.

You’re welcome to argue that Israeli’s are biased without it raising issues of antisemitism, but it’s not appropriate to argue that Jews are. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I've raised it and agree with BilledMammal. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has brought up religion. You yourself raised that the source may be “Jewish”—you didn’t specify whether you were pointing out their possible Jewish faith or their possible Jewish ethnicity.
That an author ought to be trusted less, or may be biased, because they are a Jew, is a plainly antisemitic contention. Zanahary (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Image of Luxemburg Personalausweis

Hi Kashmiri I want to add the image to page in German „Personalausweis (Luxemburg)” which I have created. I can not make it. Could You help me? Jankwi (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reason that I remove unsourced content

I feel that unsourced content encourages other new editors to also add unsourced content, and inexperienced editors to add something they find on a search which matches a text string in the statement as a source for the statement. I feel that Wikipedia is not the place for mis or dis-information to be published. This is a good relevant essay: WP:BACKWARDS. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Separate ThinkFree Office from Hancom Office

Hello Kashmiri,

I'd like to discuss the possibility of separating the ThinkFree Office entry from the Hancom Office page. Here are the key points:

• Corporate Independence: ThinkFree Inc. was spun off from Hancom in November 2023 and operates independently. An updated Wikipedia entry would reflect this change accurately. More details can be found in this ZDNet Korea article.
• Product Distinction: ThinkFree Office consists of word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation tools, making it a distinct product from Hancom Office in both composition and offerings.
• Brand Identity: Maintaining a distinct entry for ThinkFree Office would help in preserving its unique brand identity.

I believe your insight would be crucial in ensuring the precision of this update. Could we start a discussion on this to explore the best way forward? Thanks for considering this change. Longtailmonkey (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Longtailmonkey I'm not really sure that ThinkFree Office currently passes our notability threshold for software. It may, if it's the same as Hancom Office, but again, I think the discussion will be best had at Talk:Hancom Office. I'm sorry I can't be of much help. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)