User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2020/July

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere 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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Congratulations to Guerillero, who is awarded the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels for his continued contributions to Wikipedia. Well done. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: Thank you! --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

Regarding this edit: can you also modify the subheadings to match? Thank you. isaacl (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl:  Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: arbitration enforcement sanction

Admin Guerillero, I have read your notice that i have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to the AE request. Yes, I saw only admin JzG and admin Seraphimblade expressed their opinions to the AE request in the section of "Result concerning Marvin 2009". After seeing their opinions, I made a series of comments to their opinions, which were put on the User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse due to the 500/20 limit. You did say you would apply the topic ban but did not provide a reason in the AE page. First question i have after reading your notice is whether you had a chance to review my comments to the two admins' opinions, and my comments to accusations before enforcing the sanction? This year all my 7 edits on Falun Gong were meant to address the multiple violations user Bloodofox and user Horse Eye Jack brought to the articles based on WP:NPOV and WP:V, i did not add any my own POV or agenda as admin JzG indicated. So the issues the two admins discussed about were not applicable to me. I am not sure why you believe i should be topic banned. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 19:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: I am uninterested in reading 3500 extra words beyond the 500 words and 20 diffs you are allowed at AE. Statements at AE need to stand by themselves and are what admins use for their decision.

I feel that the thread outlines why you were topic banned. However for the sake of clarity, your topic ban is for engaging in battlefield-like conduct, casting aspersions and disruptive editing. There was an unanimous consensus of 3 uninvolved admins and the thread had been open for a while, so I closed it. I do not feel that the input of JzG and Seraphimblade is to be ignored just because you disagree with it. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making clear the reasons. This year i started to edit the Falun Gong article after seeing Bloodofox's edits failing with WP:V. I do not believe any of my edits this year has any of those issues you mentioned. i respect admins, however, i feel on this case it seems that admin Seraphimblade and you haven't got a chance to review my altogether 7 edits for learning what happened or were misled. As for admin JzG, on my talk page I raised his previous edits on one Falun Gong related article where multiple reliable sources were removed. i do not know whether admin JzG can be counted as uninvolved. May I ask if I can appeal? Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 02:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvin 2009, you may appeal at any time (the right of appeal is sacred on Wikipedia), but the chances of success in doing so immediately are a low. I would wait a few months if I were you. El_C 02:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C, Thanks for letting me know that I am allowed to appeal and for the advice. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 03:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on The Minute Man. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: thank you! --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Unarchiving on AE

This report was also archived without any action and this user has resumed edit warring against RfC[1] on the article where his disruption was more widespread than others since the archiving of the report.

Can you unarchive this report? Thanks. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: I closed the RfC and unarchived the AE thread --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the AE report against me was from a sock puppet account

Admin: PatCheng who filed the complaint was clearly acting in bad faith, and was most likely a sock puppet of another editor (PCPP who had been permanently topic banned -User_talk:PCPP#Arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban:_Falun_Gong. Could you look into this? If it is confirmed, the AE report against me was a topic banned user who circumvented the banning. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 23:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: You need to provide explicit reasons that PatCheng is a sock of PCPP. Allegations are not enough. If you can not, continuing down this path will result in being blocked for personal attacks or violating your topic ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero:Thanks for the response. Here is some of the evidence that I think warrants a further investigation:

PatCheng was an active editor in 2006. He was editing less frequently in summer of 2006, and stopped editing in September 2006. (After being silent for 13 years, he returned to editing suddenly in 2019 solely to report me to ANI and AE).

PCPP created his account in summer 2006, and made first edit in November 2006.

The editing interests of these accounts in 2006/2007 and later are extremely similar. Both editors focused extensively on video games and popular culture, and on Falun Gong, the Epoch Times, human rights in China. Both accounts seemed to edit from the same POV on topics related to China. Falun Gong and the Epoch Times are among the top five articles edited by both accounts.

• Analysis of PatCheng's contribution history: [2]
• Analysis of PCPP's contribution history: [3]

More revealing is that they also both edited the same unrelated pages and templates on video games. For example, they both edited Template:Blizzard Entertainment. Here are PatCheng's edits to that template:02:51, 4 April 2006, 02:45, 4 April 2006, and 01:08, 23 March 2006‎

And here are PCPP's edits:00:53, 4 August 2007‎‎, 22:44, 22 March 2007, and 19:29, 14 March 2007

To give another example, PCPP edited Template:Command & Conquer series: 01:48, 14 February 2008, and 01:47, 14 February 2008

Based on this, PatCheng edited the related page, Template:Command & Conquer

2006-03-21 00:22 Diff

2006-03-18 10:16 Diff

2006-03-18 07:13 Diff

2006-03-15 06:07 Diff

2006-03-14 07:18 Diff

It is highly unlikely that two unconnected accounts would both have an interest in China/human rights/Falun Gong, and in the Command and Conquer series and Blizzard Entertainment. And that one account would start editing within two months of the other account stopping. This can't be coincidence.

It seems more likely that PatCheng abandoned his old username in summer 2006 and adopted a new name PCPP, which he used to continue editing the same topics. After PCPP was permanently topic banned from editing on Falun Gong, he revived his old PatCheng account in 2019, when his only purpose was to get me banned.

Thanks for your attention!

Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 18:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: The 8 year break between PCP's ban and PatCheng's return is gets me. Further, none of the shared topics are that niche. Blizzard Entertainment's games are some of the best selling in the world and Command & Conquer has been published for over 20 years. If we are to believe that PatCheng is the user's real name, and interest in China wouldn't be strange. Also, I'm pretty sure that the accounts are not in the same time zone. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero:Thanks for the response. The video games may be popular. But most editors do not edit template pages. And it's very strange that two unconnected accounts would edit the same video games template pages, AND that they would also both primary focus on editing Falun Gong/Epoch Times pages (where they exhibit the same POV), AND that one account is created when the other stops editing. Statistically, the chance this is coincidence is very low. And even though PCPP was topic banned from Falun Gong in 2011, he violated the ban as recently as 2016.

I would say your question regarding the 8 year break between PCP's ban and PatCheng's return is reasonable. However, even though PCPP was topic banned from Falun Gong in 2011, he violated the ban multiple times. Here are 3 examples: 1, 2 and in July 2016, PCPP was temporarily blocked by Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise due to continued breaches of the existing topic ban.

Plus, before PCPP’s topic ban in 2011, after PatCheng’s return in 2019, both of them worked with user Simonm223 regarding FLG related topic. Please check 13:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC) user Simonm223's message to PCPP about editing FLG article , PCPP left a message to Simonm223 on editing FLG article, and 00:21, 16 January 2010 PCPP reverted Falun Gong article to the state that Simonm223 edited.

Please also check: PatCheng's message to Simonm223 about the FLG related article ET.PatCheng was the first user who posted the NBC reports against ET on August 20 the same day when NBC released the report. On the same day, PatCheng notified user Simonm223 who subsequently went to the ET page and did many questionable editing after PatCheng's notice. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 2

It appears in 2009 and 2010 PCPP worked with Simonm223 in editing FLG topic, after 9 years, PatCheng worked with Simonm223 in editing FLG topic. Suppose PCPP and PatCheng are different users, it is hard to explain that PatCheng informed Simonm223 on his talk page regarding FLG related topic on Aug 20 2019, the same day he just started to post on ET after retiring 13 years? Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 15:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Guerillero. I'm just posting to let you know that List of presidents of Washington College – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 7. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Wikipedia:Today's featured list/August 2020 shows Community areas in Chicago in that slot --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes that page is slow to update without refreshing your cache. If you click here, you should find the Washington College list. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Giants2008: The summary looks great! --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of comission

I'm getting all 4 of my wisdom teeth out tomorrow and will be out of commission for a bit --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wishing you a speedy recovery (and Nitrous oxide). El_C 14:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent DS?

I'm sure this was just an error, but after you said that you would be applying the same discretionary sanctions to each editor pinged, you then gave User:Binksternet a notice, rather than a sanction. Just in case you missed it. Anyway, looking forward to you suggestions, if any, on how to move forward with resolve the content problems. TheBlueCanoe 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheBlueCanoe: I can not sanction him due to the fact that was as never notified of the sanctions. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Explanation Required

Please explain in unambiguous terms how one single revert on a page in a decade constitutes edit warring, especially since a) the page's edit policy specified that an editor may not revert more than once every 24 hours, b) I have never been sanctioned or even warned about any kind of misbehavior in relation to the topic area, c) I have consistently advocated for civility, discussion and de-escalation of any battleground mentality on the talk page, and my only revert was directly related to fostering this approach. Bstephens393 (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bstephens393: You took part in the edit war that lead to the article being locked --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please consider to cancel the topic ban added on me?

Admin: Upon the SI result of PatCheng/PCPP, Could you please consider to cancel my topic ban you issued? As I should not be banned based on a complaint by a user who is not allowed to make such a complaint. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 01:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvin 2009, two wrongs don't make a right. While the sockpuppet investigation found that another editor engaged in policy violations, the community still expects you to:

1. Acknowledge that your conduct fell short of Wikipedia's behavioral standards, and
2. Show that you would edit constructively if you are allowed to return to the topic area that you are banned from

Part #2 requires you to make high-quality contributions in different topic areas. This is why I and others have advised you to refrain from appealing your topic ban for a minimum of six months at WP:AN § Appealing my topic ban – you'll need the time to demonstrate that you can edit constructively before you are able to make a strong appeal. Guerillero has the final word, of course, but it is commonly known that an appeal of a topic ban shortly after it is issued is highly unlikely to be successful. — Newslinger talk 06:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I appreciate you spent time investigating PatCheng/PCPP. May I ask whether you have checked the evidence on STSC and LucasGeorge provided in the end part of section A and C of the AN appeal, and section C, as well as the interesting results from Editor Interaction Analyser. I raised concerns on PCPP and PatCheng to admin Guerillero weeks ago. Guerillero's question on the strange 8 years break from 2011 to 2019 was reasonable, which inspired me for more investigations for the period. So i have those findings. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 02:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvin 2009, requesting an investigation of these users with the provided links is actually a violation of the topic ban, since this matter is connected to the Falun Gong topic area, and sockpuppet investigations are not covered under the exceptions in WP:BANEX. Please take care to avoid the Falun Gong topic area entirely while the topic ban is in place. I was able to handle the PatCheng/PCPP investigation because Pudeo submitted the evidence in their own name. Nevertheless, I have to agree with Pudeo that the behaviorial evidence for STSC and LucasGeorge is not strong enough to show a connection to PatCheng/PCPP, since I already had examined these accounts during the PatCheng/PCPP investigation. — Newslinger talk 02:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger:, Thanks for the reminding. Let me remove the links. i mainly asked whether you have checked before. Now i got the answer. Thanks again for your effort. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 03:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: Per Newslinger's comments, I am declining to reverse your topic ban at this time. Please show me that you can edit constructively in other areas of the encyclopedia without issue. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I edited other articles as well. The article Xu Pei was created by me in the May. i started to worked on it in my sandbox last year. I am also interested in engineering related topics like Heat pump and refrigeration cycle Refrigeration Adsorption refrigeration Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning etc. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 21:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: Come back in 6-12 months. The more you are clamoring to return to the topic area and trying to find a wedge to overturn the topic ban, the more it seems that the topic ban was the correct call. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger and Guerillero:: In my responses to the complains and in my appeal, for the areas I fell short I did acknowledge, but I did not commit any of the 20+ wrongdoings alleged by Patcheng.

This AE case is nothing like the usual cases you experienced. 1. Patcheng had extremely bad records, as admin Newslinger have found. 2. The fact that it was launched and prepared by a sock puppet account shows that it was motivated by bad faith. 3. There is no merit. I refuted them one by one in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse#C._Responses_to_User_Pat_Cheng's_fake_accusations So, this AE case is exceptional. The content must be considered with skepticism, because the purpose of the author of that AE case is in serious question.

The point of a sock puppetry act is that the sock puppet is dispensable. By banning me and the sock puppet, I think that is what the sock puppet wanted. I think the admins on this AE case are playing right into his/her hands.

Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Block_evasion

One reason for sockpuppeting is to circumvent a block, ban or other form of sanction imposed on the person's original account. After access is restricted, people may try to get around the sanctions by using alternate accounts.

WP:Sockpuppetry

Evasion of sanctions: Sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts. Using a second account to edit in violation of an active block or community sanction will result in further sanctions, which may include removal of your contributions.

This AE case should not be seen as legitimate in the first place, as it was launched by TBAN user PCPP using sock puppet. The 6 months waiting time for an appeal might be okay for one who has indeed committed wrongdoings. For the unusual injustice in this unusual case even one day is too long. As it doesn't seem like any one has thoroughly reviewed my detailed response for Patcheng's accusations, you might not realize this.

In my latest appeal, I made detailed response to defend my edits on their merits. Yet comments were mainly “TL;DR”, “NOTHEM”, “Two wrongs do not make a right”. Although I agree with these points, hearing that tune tells me that no editor actually read my appeal in detail, at least they have not read past the first section. One would be aware that all my 7 edits were made in response to the disruptive edits from other users, if he or she could review the context.

My AE response and appeal were lengthy. I believe in simplicity and had no desire to write a long appeal if I could make it short in any way. Aside from my mastery of the language is not so adequate for making a concise and effective case, the matter that PatCheng's plotted and get me banned ran deep in many years involving at least one sock puppet of the TBAN user PCPP.

I feel that the element of bad faith surrounding the AE means that the accusations against me and my defense against them should at least, be viewed with care. I feel that that has not nearly been the case.

Before this year's AE report, I was following NPOV spirit for addressing WP:OR content brought in by another user. After I tried to prevent OR edits (detailed explanation of all my seven edits for the FLG article this year were in section B of the AN appeal), the AE report from a sock puppet was launched, and the resulting topic ban was enforced, aren't both the fruits from a poisonous tree?

It should have been a part of admins' responsibility to prevent a topic banned user from using a sock puppet and reporting on AE. I was a victim of the sock puppet circumventing the topic ban and the resulting erroneous ban, just because I tried to prevent disruptive POV edits on basis of NPOV principle. I am innocent to the accusations of being disruptive and casting aversion. I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. I did not cast any aversion here or anywhere. My topic ban was a huge mistake, so I hope that the existing mechanism in Wikipedia would correct the mistake.

At the end of the day, I feel that this administrative action has helped the sockpuppeter achieve his agenda. His target is eliminated. He gets away scot-free, with confidence and license to commit more of such acts in the future. The administrative action against me is setting a dangerous precedent.

I agree with your guys' advice on making high-quality contributions in different topic. Suppose I am cleared off the false accusations, I will try to mainly focus editing other human rights topics and engineering topics.Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: You asked me to "how you can edit constructively in other areas of the encyclopedia without issue". I followed your instruction and provided evidence.

It seems that I was deeply misunderstood. Please be aware that I was not "clamoring to return to the topic area". In fact, prior to this June's 7 edits for addressing two users' Original Research issues, I have not touched FLG article for over a year. Neither did I try "to find a wedge to overturn the topic ban". I mainly reminded the illegitimacy of the AE report from a sock puppet going around his TBAN, and give the relevant parties opportunities to correct the errors.

I am, in your word, "clamoring", because I am genuinely bothered about the injustice and harm arising from this administrative action against me. In a case like this, the administrative decision is not just a harm to me, the way that it rewards the wrongdoer and punishes the victim harms the community on a whole. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: My answer has not changed in the past 3 days, and I am not discussing this with you again until 2021. You are welcome to try your luck at AE again, but they tend to look dimly upon re-running appeals so close together. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)