User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2022/August

Hi

Regarding this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soibangla&diff=1101331204&oldid=1101258359

you may note on my Talk last night that I stated I was leaving the contentious topic where I was engaged in vigorous debate. I saw the feedback and I heeded it. Actually, I had already made the decision to exit. I see no reason for sanction which appears more punitive than corrective at this point. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

After you said that, you returned to editing 2022 Recession. I feel that the short topic ban is helpful -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I said I was leaving Recession where the controversy arose, there was no controversy on 2022 Recession. I believe a sanction is unnecessarily punitive, especially for a week. soibangla (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The locus of the controversy is determining if the United States is currently in a recession. You moved to another article within that scope. I stand by my sanction. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The locus of the controversy is actually whether the Recession lead was changed to inject a POV slant that wasn't there for years, in the midst of a current political controversy. Any sanction is punitive and unjustified, and one week is excessive. soibangla (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please would you provide diffs that demonstrate a pattern of indisputable battleground behavior, as opposed to rigorous debate, that warrants a one week retroactive punishment, after I said I was disengaging, rather than an earlier warning to my Talk page? soibangla (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Mostly "inevitable vindication" coupled with with immediately jumping into the same topic area after you said you would disengage lead to the topic ban. However, these diffs ("who's-who of fake news sites", advocating that we should stop trying to reach an consensus and use your preferred version, using the talk page as a forum to discuss the general issue rather than the article) are troubling. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Speaking in the context of my stated (if unasked-for) "countersign" of the TBAN (which, I will stress, is independent of my decision to block for a straightforward violation of the TBAN, something I would have done even for a sanction I disagree with), my concerns were: 1) The generally combative tone at Talk:Recession, arguing with the IPs and throwaway accounts who everyone else was wisely either ignoring or politely explaining things to, thereby directly furthering the right-wing narrative of Wikipedia being hostile to feedback on this matter, a narrative you were well aware of, while not advancing any encyclopedic goal; 2) the unexplained and seemingly unprovoked antipathy toward the main editor who was trying to offset that; 3) "my inevitable vindication", showing a battleground mentality; 4) a nom statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Recession that seemed to just repeat the argument ongoing at Talk:Recession without addressing any aspect of deletion policy (despite the AfD trending heavily against keeping, no !votes endorse the nom's logic), and 5) the decision to promptly reëngage on the matter shortly after being asked to disengage and saying you were done.

It's not the sort of thing that would get someone a lengthy TBAN, but a week away from one very specific debate where you've had an outsized and disruptive role, while collective tempers cool, seems reasonable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: August 2022

WikiProject Scouting | August 2022 Notes for August: Happy Scout Scarf Day! You wearing your neckerchief today? We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. These three articles are our top candidates to work up into Good Articles. Gilwell Park Girl Guides World Organization of the Scout Movement Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) August 1, 2022

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi Guerillero. I have a question about User talk:Lugnuts. Since Lugnuts has been banned and their tpa has also been revoked, I'm just curious as to why the talk page hasn't been WP:GOLD locked as well. Even though Lugnuts can no longer respond there, it seems like the page might become a magnet for drama (from both sides) at least for the near future. In addition, it seems pointless to notify Lugnuts of any articles being nominated for deletion since they can't participate in any such discussions. Over the past few days, there's been cases of users removing posts made by others simply because they didn't like what was posted. I'm not really connected to any of the discussions that have been going on, and only noticed things via my watchlist. It seems, however, it might be better to limit talk page access to admins only (at least for the time being) to let things cool down a bit. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Full protecting talk pages is almost never done. He also has a bunch of talk page watchers who may be interested in knowing if any of the articles he created go to AfD -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I considered the latter, but thought the potential for more drama possibly outweighed that. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a silly question

Did the recent Arbcom case results actually get posted to 7&6=thirteen's user talk page? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo: The bot seems to have missed it.  Done -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

For my own clarity

Hi, G - I'm a tad confused. Being t-banned from AfD deletion discussions does not prevent an editor from iVoting, correct? They just can't discuss their iVote or partake in the "Discussion" section? Atsme 💬 📧 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: While I am not an arb and can not provide clarification, my understanding is that it would bar them from !voting -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahh...that is what I originally thought, adding that if it were me in the hot seat, I would not have done something like this a day or two before the close when the count was already in favor of a t-ban. What's a gal gonna do...*sigh*. Thanks, G. Atsme 💬 📧 11:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban whoopsie

You accidentally removed a topic ban that should not have been removed in this edit. I have restored the one that was not superseded. Just letting you know. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

relist?

Did you mean to relist this again after the relist 2 days ago? PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Explicit dropped a relist template but never did the rest of the paperwork. I removed the earlier template -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Restriction on Russian-Ukrainian articles

I think it would be a good idea if the same kind of 500/30 restrictions as are in place on Arab-Israeli topics and World War 2 in Poland were applied to this topic. The number of sketchy brand new accounts that have been popping up and making tendentious edits has significantly increased recently. Volunteer Marek 00:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: That would need to go though arbcom and I don't know how much more they want to roll out 500/30. You would need to make a tight case that DS is not solving the current issues -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto

I hope it's ok to ask a question here either about how to progress with a situation with Gtoffoletto or to request intervention.
Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a lot of potential text involved so, hoping it's appropriate, I'll also ping other admins familiar with this editor via blocks and unblocks: Daniel Case, PhilKnight, Bishonen

Gtoffoletto recently began two discussions: Talk:Depp v. Heard#Big revert. Why? and Talk:Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd#Original title of the Sun's article. In the first case I'd interpret that, after arguments going against him, he's rebooting the already long discussion with select titling that leaves another editor to interject "Please ask the right question" and in the second case I'd interpret trying to shut the discussion down without the issues raised being dealt with.

In the most recent preceding incident Gtoffoletto repeatedly sought to remove a ‎Comments by juror content [1][2][3][4] from an article about a jury trial (which other editors later substantially added to[5][6]) with the removals being countered in an edit war that I engaged in and in which we were both sanctioned.

Gtoffoletto has a history of editing on Depp v. Heard and related articles that, in short, I regard as tendentious. In my interpretation of my edits I hold that I've edited neutrally to add or develop contents[7] but in a situation in which there had been plenty of existing content that was slanted in various ways against Depp and in favour of Heard.

Any thoughts, advice or interventions would be appreciated. GregKaye 19:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd certainly read his side of it, but it sounds like this has escalated beyond the noticeboards to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It would probably be for the best to take this to ANI over my talk page to get more feedback from the community -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel Case and Guerillero. I'll take a look at AN/I. GregKaye 05:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, since quite a crowd has been summoned here: apparently my editing was so "tendentious" that the user above acknowledged overwhelming support for it and even ended up voting to support it himself. Quite a spectacular display of his collaboration skills. I've heard Zazen works wonders. Moving on... {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law and Chaos

Several ATDs were mentioned, and several of those advocating deletion--specifically the last three--do so on the basis of surmountable problems and hence should be discounted accordingly. Please undelete, redirect it to the ATD of your choice, and amend your closure accordingly. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: No. The consensus to delete is clear. The people who put forward merging were also open to deleting and there was no agreement as to what alternative should be used. There was nothing to gain by relisting the discussion. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

So, you have no issue with me taking this to DRV, I take it? Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Do what you want to -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave you a chance to clean up your own mess... (shrug). You didn't. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Saint Vincent Beer, "about a pre-prohibition brewery run by monastery that generated quite a bit of controversy"! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: You are welcome. It was a fun one to write -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Good for you ;) - I have a FAC open that was difficult, third round. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Afd: Organisation of Communists of Italy (Marxist–Leninists)

Hi, I did not understand the closure with "no consensus" of this Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisation of Communists of Italy (Marxist–Leninists)): only one user has expressed himself in favor of keeping it (with a very questionable reason, namely that any party deserves a page on wikipedia), while the same author of the page withdrew his vote for keeping the page, admitting that it should be merged with Unified Communist Party of Italy, being the same party. In practice, only one user has expressed himself for the maintenance, and all the others for the cancellation or transformation into a redirect. I would invite you to read again that discussion, it does not seem to me that the closure of the Afd correctly reflects its outcome... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: In the discussion I see no real consensus as to what to do. Merges and redirects require no consensus. If you want to redirect it, go ahead. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok! thank you for the explanation. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.

Thank you for making my manager mad after you declined the rollback request. Now I have to pay them $600. Izivy (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"What do you mean you have a manager, a manager for what?" I meant a manager to work on Wikipedia. Izivy (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you reply anytime now? Izivy (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Your making my manager very angry at me. Izivy (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Izivy: Are you engaging in Undisclosed paid editing? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No. Izivy (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually yeah... Izivy (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

But its not "undisclosed". Izivy (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It is real-paid to my BDO and GCash account. Izivy (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Izivy: Where has it been publically disclosed to the community. Your user page mentions nothing of the sort --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not put it in my userpage yet. I am warning you, if you dont give me rollback, the Wikipedia might banned you. Izivy (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Or block you. Izivy (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

For people watching at home, I just blocked the OP for UPE and socking -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Are you still following the article's progress at FAR, after the massive socking uncovered last February? This may be a good time to tune in ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Thanks for the heads up. I have only kept an eye out for additional socks over the past few months due to personal projects. I will give the discussion a read through this evening -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

No need to read through all the discussion; I suggest just watchlisting the article if you have time, lest recent edits recur. In my experience, watching and letting WP:ROPE apply works best for drawer cleaning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

ADF of Cones Lake

It seems that User:Lightburst has made a credible claim that the sources used for arguing Cones Lake is notable are actually about Cone Lake in a different county and these two lakes are being confused. Had you considered that? MB 16:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

JPL

Please could you clarify whether John Pack Lambert's most recent restrictions on deletion-related editing cover soliciting other editors to PROD articles? please see this. Ingratis (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

At AE -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello

I want to ask you to consider that the sources which were brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cones Lake were not for that lake. Sources for two separate lakes: Cone Lake and Cones lake, have been bandied about. The 22 acre Cone lake is notable. But not the small man made pond at AfD. I also want to ping User:Reywas92 as he is somewhat of a Geography sleuth on the project. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lightburst & MB: Sorting through Cones vs Cone's vs Cone is an editorial decision beyond what AfD can do. There was a consensus to keep, but pulling those apart and trying to decide if they are for separate places is better suited for the talk page. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. AFD is to decide on the notability of a topic. If there was confusion over whether the sources brought to the discussion are about a different place, that needs to be sorted out before notability can be assessed. This should be relisted. MB 23:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a relist would result in anything different from what there is now. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

I wonder if you may have misread the consensus here as well? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting (percussion) (2nd nomination). It appears to be a no consensus but leaning keep. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I switched it to no consensus. I think there is a stronger consensus to merge than keep, but merging is an editorial decision and it should be discussed on one of the talk pages in more detail because the consensus was not overwhelming. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chestertown Armory

Hello! Your submission of Chestertown Armory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User account

I requested you to see my userpage. Suman Kumar Nepal (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)