User talk:Levivich/Archive 4

Active discussions

Your commentsEdit

This is now twice today that I've had to suppress comments of yours; the first when you directed people towards off-wiki harassment of Wikipedians, and now when you've linked to an off-wiki account that has not been self-disclosed. Please put a lot more thought into your comments on this subject going forward; my patience is running thin and I will absolutely place a block if I need to suppress your comments again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, please don’t be pedantic, that account was self disclosed, and has been for years. On top of the username being the same. And you know this because you also post there. And I was linking to an editor’s comment about me. I’m glad you take off wiki comments about me as seriously as you take off wiki comments about others. Levivich 20:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The rule is that it must be disclosed by the Wikipedian on Wikipedia, as it always has been. As far as I'm aware, that is not the case with the account you linked. This isn't pedantry, it's a long-standing portion of the WP:OUTING policy. If you have concerns about off-wiki harassment, by all means please contact the Arbitration Committee via email and ask us to look into them. But it's not okay to out people on-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's back up a second, GW. You say "This is now twice today that I've had to suppress comments of yours", but the first time, I did absolutely nothing wrong. I mentioned the name of an off-wiki account that was linked to at ANI for over a week. Somebody (I guess you?) just revdelled or suppressed (I can't tell the difference) ~1,250 diffs from ANI after I made my post. The fact that this information was on a very heavily trafficked ANI thread, yet no editor or admin-not even the closer–revdel'd it or otherwise said anything was wrong with it–that completely absolves me of any wrongdoing by mentioning the name of it. You must admit there was no way in hell I could possibly have known that there would be anything wrong with naming it. 1,250 is a shitload of diffs! I would have preferred if you had responded with something like "This should have been suppressed a while ago, thanks for bringing it to my attention, Levivich." On the other hand, maybe it shouldn't have been suppressed? Maybe that's why no one else said anything about it? In any event, please don't claim this is some kind of "strike one" against me–I did nothing wrong by posting it. And, if it wasn't for me bringing it up, you wouldn't have even known about it, and it would still be out there, unsuppressed.
Now onto the second time you suppressed a post of mine. You say, "As far as I'm aware, that is not the case", but you weren't aware of the "something" having been posted at ANI until I mentioned it, so what makes you think you are aware of whether or not "Editor X"'s account was self-disclosed on-wiki? I know you're an intelligent person with nothing but good intentions, but have you really not considered the possibility that you're wrong in this instance? I'm well aware of the OUTING policy, and I'm not one to ignore policy or not care about privacy issues. Ask me for the diff where, years ago, "Editor X" admitted to having an account at "that" website (which is still used to this day, with the same username). I'm not going to post it unless I have your permission, so that I don't get into "surprise trouble" again with another post. Then I'll ask you to please put my post back. Levivich 21:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Um, or option 3, the internet being a place where things change over time, at the time of the post on ANI the link did not contain things that violate the outing policy and it does now? I get youre upset that a friend of yours has been blocked, but I thought you were opposed to harassment? nableezy - 21:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
You know what, Nableezy, you're right, that could be a third option. If that were true, I'd have thought GW would have said that ("Well, Levivich, it wasn't harassment when it was originally posted, but due to more-recent posts, it now is."). Looking through, um, "that thing" that I cannot name, to the extent that there is doxxing there (which is harassment, and which I am very much against), the doxxing was already there from a week ago. So that kind of pokes holes in the theory of late-developing harassment. Also, doxxing happens at certain other websites, ones where GW and many other editors participate, but we don't suppress mentions of Wikipediocracy. I remember reading a thread like "I'd pay good money to doxx Fram", but that's apparently no big deal here. Bottom line is: I'm not fan of "that thing", but I do not believe there is sufficient evidence (like matching IPs) to say Icewhiz is behind it. It's impossible to rule out a joe job. Now, I'd ask you a similar question, Nab: I thought you were against editors being sitebanned based on secret evidence? Levivich 21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Youve said that this is similar to T&S and the FRAMBAN multiple times now, and each time you have missed a kind of crucial distinction. Now I was not around when ArbCom was first created, so I cant speak to the entire history here, but as long as I have been here, and consequently as long as you have, one of ArbCom's roles has always been to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons. There are times where "secret" evidence, meaning evidence not presented to the general editor community, will have to be used. Off-site harassment being one obvious example. And ArbCom has always been the body that we elected to deal with those issues. The FRAMBAN however was instituted by a body that we had no say in picking or ability to remove in some future election. We, the Wikipedia community, have agreed that ArbCom however, being a body from us and elected by us, can indeed take "secret" evidence in to account and can indeed ban editors on its basis. Beyond that, another obvious difference here is that your pal was actually, apparently, confronted by the committee about this. It was not a secret to him what this ban is based on. Finally, there is at least one post involving outing from within the last couple days there. So, if you think this is going to be the winning argument feel free to continue making it, but no, this is not in any way analogous to an unelected body imposing their will upon us (the FRAMBAN). nableezy - 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think it absolves you—someone was engaged in off-wiki harassment severe enough to warrant an ArbCom block, how on earth would it be a good idea to start posting links to places where harassment was occurring going "is this it?" But I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention (albeit via a roundabout way -- in the future, if you think there is harassment that should have been suppressed, an email to the oversight team is the way to report it).
On the other hand, maybe it shouldn't have been suppressed? Maybe that's why no one else said anything about it? It was indeed me who suppressed it, and given how large a suppression it was, I immediately brought it to the attention of the entire oversight team via our email list in case people disagreed with the action. This isn't some sneaky action on my part, and I'm sure the OS team will speak up if they think I've overstepped. So far no one has.
You say, "As far as I'm aware, that is not the case", but you weren't aware of the "something" having been posted at ANI until I mentioned it, so what makes you think you are aware of whether or not "Editor X"'s account was self-disclosed on-wiki? I know you're an intelligent person with nothing but good intentions, but have you really not considered the possibility that you're wrong in this instance? It is the responsibility of the poster to show that they are not violating the WP:OUTING policy. We err on the side of caution for what I assume are obvious reasons. If the link has been made on-wiki by a user to their account on this offwiki site and I was mistaken in suppressing the edit, please do provide the link and I will undo the suppression. If it was on-wiki, there should be no issue with you posting the diff.
As for Wikipediocracy, WP:BADSITES is sort of a perennial proposal, and has never reached much agreement among the community. Definitely feel free to start a new discussion about it if you like, but as far as I'm aware links to Wikipediocracy are not verboten (unless the thread itself being linked contains outing or harassment), nor is participation there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
how on earth would it be a good idea to start posting links to places where harassment was occurring going "is this it?" That's not what I did. I didn't post a link, and I didn't say "is this it?", or ask anything like that. I said, "how do they know that this is him and not me" (or something like that), and I was right, you (Arbcom) don't know that–can't know it. I didn't ask "is this it?" because I already knew it was–that was obvious just based on which arbs abstained from the vote. How on earth would I think it would be acceptable? Because it sat on ANI for a week through 1,200 revisions in a thread with lots of admin attention... so yeah, I thought it was OK to talk about. Just like Wikipediocracy is OK to talk about, even though a lot of harassment goes on there. Do you really, genuinely, not understand why I would think it was OK, given that it sat at ANI for a week through 1,200 edits? (Digging out the diffs of self-outing now...) Levivich 22:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
As I've said, the difference between linking and naming in this scenario is trivial. Regardless, it seems we are now clear that you should not do that again, which is the key piece of this conversation. I'll keep this page on my watchlist in case you find the disclosure of the account. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't believe you're too stubborn to admit that it was reasonable for me to believe it was OK to name something that had been linked to at ANI for a week. That's really disappointing. Keep this page on your watchlist; it's more than one diff. I have over 100 to go through to bring you the choice ones. Levivich 22:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, you're finding an on-wiki diff from an editor disclosing that they are the operator of a specific account off-wiki, right? Your more than one diff and choice ones wording makes me worry you think I've okayed posting more off-wiki links, which would be a misunderstanding of what I said. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
No off-wiki links, just on-wiki diffs: multiple disclosures by the editor himself, as well as multiple AE/AN/ANI threads discussing the editor's participation at Wikipediocracy. Do I really need to do this, or do you already remember the stuff I'm digging for in 2012–2014? This is all rather pedantic given that the username is the same, and the editor is super well known as a defender of and participant at WO. Levivich 22:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Just one link is fine. If I had seen the user identifying their account themself I would not have suppressed the edits just for the fun of making you dig for the disclosure--I have not seen such a disclosure (but have also not looked). As far as usernames being the same, there are a whole lot of GorillaWarfares out there that are not me -- that alone is not sufficient to satisfy WP:OUTING. And I guess I don't know them as a well known defender of/participant at WO, though I also haven't been involved in any onwiki discussions of WO in quite some time.
I do want to apologize for the harshness of my comments above. I've been thinking about them as I've gone about my evening (off-wiki) and I do think I was too strong. I was viewing this as someone perpetuating the off-wiki harassment that some editors have been enduring by drawing attention to it, and then adding to it by outing another off-wiki account. But I do see that, through the lens of the unsuppressed discussion at ANI and the presumed onwiki linking of the account, you probably did not intend to do either of those things. I also read your comments in the most recent Signpost yesterday, which would certainly not square with that initial view of mine. I am sorry for my severity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, if we're talking about the same person, it's not worth it, he's an unblockable, he has too many admin friends. I brought an outright violation to an admin and the admin refused to do anything about it. This place is sinking fast. Where asking for evidence is considered "battleground" and the community can pile on and determine what is or what is not truth. Wikipedia is not what it used to be. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@GW: Apology accepted–thank you. Now you've gone and defused and diffused all my self-righteous fervor. I have to admit it would have been fucking hilarious if you suppressed the diffs, leaving me frantically searching like, "I knew they were here, what happened?!"   I owe you an apology, too; I've been a total dick to you today. This whole situation–the Poland case, the ANI thread against SJ–has had me raging for weeks (I agree with SJ's "unblockable" view), but you are not responsible for that; I picked a fight with you because you were good enough to respond and engage on the talk page, as you always do, and that's not fair of me. You're right that I shouldn't have named the first off-wiki account even though it was named at ANI–now that you've pointed it out to me, it seems obvious that it should have been suppressed a week ago, and the fact that it wasn't then doesn't make it OK now. I do not want to be publishing posts that you have to clean up, or be a source of stress for you or anyone else; I hate the thought that an editor would be thinking about me while they're going about their off-wiki evening (unless it's like "wow, he's so dreamy!" in which case it's ok).

So here's the diffs (actually, page links, I don't have time to track down the actual diffs), starting with VM admitting to authoring a specific post off-wiki and inviting an editor to register an account there and engage with him:

  • Editor [to VM]: " personally attacked me in an offline forum as 'insane'..."
    VM's response: "The offline forum, Wikipediocracy, is not Wikipedia...You're free to register and account there and call me anything you like..." [1]
  • In addition to that, there's "I'm a Wikipediocracy member ... a Wikipediocracy member such as myself", and "...there's no "members". Just people who comment on there. I do."
  • There's also an AE thread [2], a VPP thread [3], an AN thread [4], and a CUOS appointment thread [5], where VM's WO participation is openly discussed.
  • VM created the Wikipediocracy article and has been active in discussions about it [6] [7] [8]
  • I posted that link in the first place in response to VM demanding an accusation be stricken because it was an aspersion (when he knows damn well that he talks his fair share of smack, both on and off wiki). In my view it's perverse to allow him to hide behind OUTING to falsely claim innocence, when he's openly discussed his participation there for years on-wiki.
  • "Outing" is revealing something that was hidden; I didn't reveal anything that was hidden. I hear what you're saying about the many GW's out there, but in this case, there is zero chance of impersonation. If VM makes no secret on-wiki of being a WO member, if he talks about me there, I should be able to "call him out" on it on-wiki.

So, for these reasons, I didn't think I was outing him by linking to his post about me. To be clear, I don't think he should be sanctioned or anything; I don't really care if he talks about me on or off wiki; I just want the truth to be out in the open; I don't want him to be able to claim that other people are casting aspersions when they say he's been uncivil or whatever. But I respect the bits and votes, so if your judgment is that it's against policy, I will not mention it again. Levivich 02:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, I genuinely want to thank you for digging out this old comment of mine [9]. It was hilarious, if I say so myself. But it's an obvious parody. Ahhh, memories. Regardless, I have not accused you of OUTING so I'm not "hiding" behind anything. AFAIK you have not done so. And I'm guessing that you probably did refer to my account on WO correctly, which is fine (though there have been folks on there either pretending to be me or posting personal information before, but the moderators delete that stuff just like admins delete it here). Volunteer Marek 03:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that you were hiding, only that you should not be allowed to. But you're not hiding, I'm not outing, and that brings the number of things we agree on to two. Levivich 03:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Apology accepted as well, thank you. This is all nasty business and I think tempers and feelings in general are running hot. I've actually just heard from Volunteer Marek to say that the WO link is known, which helps with the somewhat gray area around the fact that none of your links really mention his username. I'll go ahead and unsuppress the edit, though since you've partially re-added it do you want me to just leave it to you to make any edit to your existing comment? It would kind of mess up the flow of conversation, I think, for me to just plunk it back in there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for the offer GW but you don't need to re-add it or unsuppress it–I agree it would mess up the flow of conversation at this point, and it doesn't really matter anymore. When I said "Then I'll ask you to please put my post back", I was just being huffy-puffy. Levivich 03:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    We try to keep only the things that need suppression suppressed, so I've unsuppressed it for that reason anyway. I won't make any further changes, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I may not always agree with you...Edit

I never wanted to edit Wikipedia. I wanted to be .... A LUMBERJACK!

...but I always respect references to Monty Python. Vermont (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Vermont (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Like Bible verses, there's a Python sketch for every occasion. Levivich 03:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
You insinuate that Monty Python is not synonymous with the Bible! [10] I blow my nose at you, so-called Levivich! [11] Hmph. Vermont (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Ha! Thanks for that, I had not seen the Not the Nine O'Clock News bit before. It was pretty great to see Rowan Atkinson say "The Christ figure is not Cleese." Anyway, I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper yellow-faced honeyeater, I fart in your general direction. Levivich 01:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would remind all participants that Arbom has ruled that failure to use {{fbdb}}, where its use could be reasonably expected to prevent blockdrama, is itself a blockable offense. EEng 04:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    I refuse to use the {{fucking bastard douchebag}} template; it's uncivil. (Although MJL's testimonial is hilarious.) Levivich 04:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    You are my muse: Template:Fucking bastard douche bag, Template:Fucking bastard douchebag. The beauty is that you code {{Fucking bastard douchebag}}, but it still renders as [FBDB]. What could be more delicious? EEng 04:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    That's even better than I could have ever hoped. How long do you think until it's deleted? :-D Levivich 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    Be sure to watchlist them. EEng 17:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    Are you kidding? "Fucking bastard douchebag" is the best page on my watchlist. Even better than Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits. Levivich 04:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    And that, ladies and gentlemen, was my most profanity-laced edit on Wikipedia. Levivich 04:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Give it a few more years. EEng 21:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    P.S. I don’t see the testimonial. EEng 05:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    It's at Template:FBDB#Testimonials. Levivich 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Your comment about " and everywhere else"Edit

Your comment There were more Jews than non-Jewish Poles at Auschwitz, at the Warsaw concentration camp, and everywhere else There were actually camps for Poles only called Polenlager in Silesia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a feeling you are reading more into what I am stating that there is. I am simply stating that Polish population was larger than Jewish population in Poland and thus would be the largest group affected by Nazi policies in Poland-there isn't really much to it besides that.You implied I am somehow stating Poles were the largest group in Holocaust or overall genocidal policies by Nazi Germany during the war-this was never what I meant..Just wanted to clear this up. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I hesitate to wade in because so many scholars know so much more. MyMoloboaccount, you need to stop using your own logic and synthesis to justify original research. Look at what the most respectable academics say about the topic. Jehochman Talk 02:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
No one is stating that the Jewish population in Poland was larger than that of the non-Jewish population; doing so would just be asinine. However, until you can manage to find multiple reliable, verifiable, sources that say non-Jewish Poles were more negatively effected by the policies of the Third Reich in their short reign over Poland, your opinion and use of what I see to be flawed logic is not appropriate for any Wikipedia article. The non-Jewish population, in probably every country at the time was larger than the Jewish population. Does this mean they were more effected? No, it most definitely does not. Vermont (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It's comparing apples to oranges AND this entire series of thread is an poorly disguised fishing expedition with the intent of making Molobo say something that can be used to get him banned. I wonder if this entire incident shouldn't be reported to ANI as harassment. PS. Ping the two admins involved in the discussions here - User:JzG, User:Jehochman. I suggest at the very least losing the threads here and on Molobo's talk page, they are not productive outside stressing an editor through forcing him to defend himself from a loaded question/straw man types of fallacies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
These threads were opened by Molobo... François Robere (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

changing "Jews" to "Poles and Jews" in various forms is like changing "US Civil War" to "War of Northern Aggression"Edit

I honestly don't know enough about US history to know what you mean. What I can say besides that:were Jews and Poles victims of Nazi genocide-yes,were Jews facing more intense and immediate extermination-yes, were Poles the larger group than Jews in Nazi occupied Poland-yes. That's all there is to it. I think you are looking for things that aren't there in the discussion.I think we said all there is to be said at this point-and nobody here denies Holocaust happened and was the most intense of Nazi actions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You must stop pushing your original research. If you are taking some facts and applying your own logic, it's original research. If you can find a reliable published source, that's a different thing and much better. Of course if there are already a bunch of reliable sources, and you come forward with a less prominent, less reliable source, don't be surprised if your proposed edit is rejected entirely. Jehochman Talk 19:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
In US People who are mad the South lost the civil war change "US Civil War" to "War Northern Aggression" to imply that the North attacked the South (it was the other way around).This is nothing like changing "Jews" to "Jews and Poles" and the comparison is insulting. Changing "US Civil War" to "War of Northern Aggression" is more like changing "Nazi death camps" to "Polish death camps" (or "German death camps" to "Polish death camps")--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The commonality is that the consensus of reliable sources call it, "US Civil War", "Nazi death camps", and "Jews, and others [Slavs, Roma, Poles, LGBT, etc.]", and not "The War of Northern Aggression", "Polish death camps", or "Poles and Jews". Even the primary source Nuremburg indictment that you cite so often says "Jews and Poles". Levivich 05:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Wait, so "Jews and Poles" is ok but "Poles and Jews" is not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, when listing victims of Nazis. Saying "During World War II, Germany was the primary site of the Nazi genocide of Poles and also the Holocaust" is a completely different thing than saying "During World War II, Germany was the primary site of the Holocaust and also the Nazi genocide of Poles". That change is nothing less than an attempt to rewrite history. And in fact, even the second one is incorrect, as it skips over other Slavs, like Soviets. Our main article The Holocaust does a good job of handling "the 11 million v. 6 million" issue–it presents the various viewpoints in a neutral and well-balanced way. Any presentation that puts non-Jewish Poles first is not neutral, and not historically accurate. Levivich 04:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it's just you omitted the word also in your previous example. It does change IMHO "Poles and Jews" is different than "Poles and also the Jews". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

COI QuestionEdit

Hi Levivich! I have a general question for you. I was looking at the RFA for Greenman, and I'm a little concerned by the definition of COI that Joe Roe quoted in his oppose (#17). Specifically, I think that "stakeholder" (one of the most vaguely defined words in the English language) should probably be removed from the guideline regarding COI. For example, I just made a grammar correction to an article on a large supermarket chain I like, so I technically committed a COI violation. Is this the kind of thing I should bring up on the talk page for COI? Or am I completely off here and need to forget it? Thank you for helping me! GrammarDamner (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi GrammarDamner, thanks for stopping by! I agree with you that the language of WP:COI could be improved, and yes, WT:COI would be the place to bring that up for discussion. I also agree that "stakeholder" is vague (that can be addressed by changing the wording, or alternatively maybe with an explanatory footnote that says it means those who receive a financial renumeration... so if you own stock in the supermarket, you're a stakeholder, but not if you're just a customer). Note the Terms of Use at meta:TOU, and the FAQ there at meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure, both of which (as I read them) are pretty clear that editing articles, for example, about your employer, isn't a conflict of interest unless your employer is paying you specifically to edit those articles. (Hence, university professors can edit their university's article without it being a COI.) Now, enwiki can make stricter COI rules than the WMF, but I think the differences between what's on meta and what's on enwiki are worth mentioning at WT:COI if the discussion is started. I don't really agree with Joe's description of it at the RFA, and I think he's just quoting one part of a much longer document that has a lot more nuance and detail. Note, also, that WP:COI sometimes uses the word "employer" to mean "someone who is paying you to edit", and sometimes just the person who you work for in your day job, so there's an ambiguity there as well. Levivich 19:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your input! I'll give that a try soon. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
GrammarDamner, a propos of this conversation, you may be interested in this recent thread: WT:RFA#Candidate disclosure of editing for pay. Levivich 14:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is interesting. Some good points were brought up about how in certain jobs, editing on Wikipedia could potentially lead to compensation, even if there was not an explicit quid pro quo. I'll probably weigh in soon. Thanks again! GrammarDamner (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Levivich! I have never directly interacted with you before, but I was browsing your talk page and I hope you don't mind me commenting here. I would be interested on your input, since you seem to be really good at nuanced discussions. Basically, my thought process is asking questions about the extent of a COI an employee might have when editing a Wikipedia article. I'm taking philosophy as one of my elective credits, so I guess I'm thinking more about stuff like this now.

So, hypothetical situation: I work for McDonalds as a cashier. I don't, actually, which is why this is a hypothetical situation. If I correct a typo on the mainspace article itself, is that a COI? What if I wasn't just some random cashier? Does the answer change if I have worked for McDonalds for a certain amount of time? What if I'm no longer a part-time employee, but a full time one? What if I used to work as a cashier, but haven't worked as one for over a decade? What if I move up the corporate ladder; I used to be a cashier, but now I own a McDonalds franchise?

What if it isn't just a typo, but something like a new menu item? McDonalds definitely isn't paying some random cashier to write about their new product, but would that be considered to be paid editing?

Does any of this change if we're not talking about a McDonalds cashier, but a cashier for a small business? Or even an enthusiastic volunteer for a non-profit organization?

No one is paid for their edits in these hypothetical situations, but I think that there's nuance to the extent a COI affects an edit itself. A McDonalds employee might not think their edit to the article matters, but their edits get more scrutiny and I think that scrutiny may improve or maintain the quality an encyclopedic article is suppossed to have. What might not seem like a big deal might be to someone without the same COI.

Anyways, what do you think? Is this the kind of vagueness you were referring to, or am I going on an embarrassing tangent on a discussion I wasn't even originally a part of? Clovermoss (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you ask me a cashier is the perfect person to make change in an article. EEng 03:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
EEng Which is part of the reason I think it's more nuanced than just whether or not someone has a COI, because it's also the extent of which that COI might affect someone's editing. Clovermoss (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Placeholder... it’s taking me a bit to draft a response that’s not a rambling TLDR. In the meantime, +10 XP to EEng for the successful pun cast. Levivich 20:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't believe I missed the pun. Well, actually, I can... I'm not really used to seeing humour around here. Anyways, I'm smiling now if that counts. Clovermoss (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it. See User:EEng#s and WP:ASSPERSIANS. EEng 02:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Of course I don't mind you commenting here–everybody's welcome! (Even EEng!) And you shouldn't feel embarrassed. If you do, just read some of the previous threads here, you'll feel much better. I think you'll like the philosophy elective. I remember I really enjoyed Calvin and Hobbes more after I'd read a little Calvin and Hobbes.

It's true, none of us see enough humor around here. For years, Wikipedia has been suffering from a devastating hehehaha drought. Though our funny bones are broken, efforts to irrigate the encyclopedia with laughter are ongoing. For examples, see above, or any noticeboard.

Yes, that's the vagueness I was referring to. As you've laid out, there are a lot of possible permutations of COI that makes drawing any bright-line rules difficult. Here's my opinion on the issues you've raised.

  • The principle question is: Does the relationship between the editor and article subject interfere with the editing?
  • If you're the CEO of McDonald's, you'll have a hard time editing McDonald's without bias. If the article paints McDonald's in a negative light, it will seriously affect your livelihood–your entire career, in fact. Nobody, in such a circumstance could really remain neutered neutral. Same if you're the head of public relations. Or if your life savings is in McDonald's stock.
  • If I'm the CEO of a non-profit organization, my livelihood and career still depends on the non-profit's reputation, so I probably have a strong COI that would interfere with my ability to edit the non-profit's article neutrally.
  • But for low level employees, like a cashier, I'm not sure. The connection between McDonald's reputation, and the cashier's livelihood, is indirect at best. Sure, if McDonald's article is negatively-slanted, that might depress sales, which might negatively impact the cashier's raise next year. It's there, but it's a much weaker connection than the CEO.
  • A customer might have a COI. I grew up in the days before they had laws about advertising to children, when a cartoon camel hawked cigarettes, and a clown hawked thousand-calorie burgers, so "Micky D's" is a childhood comfort food of mine. If the article McDonald's hurts the company's reputation, that might lead to a decline in sales, which might mean my local neighborhood McDonald's closing. That gives me a conflict of interest, possibly stronger than the cashier's. This isn't a financial conflict of interest, so it's not covered by our rules–but I'm telling you, access to Big Macs is worth more to me than the cashier's minimum wage job is to them.
  • A former employee might also have a COI, even stronger than a current employee, albeit non-financial.
  • You know who else probably shouldn't be editing McDonald's? Employees of Burger King and other competitors.
  • If I own a bunch of their stock, I have a huge conflict of interest. If I bought a mutual fund that holds a bunch of their stock, there's still a financial conflict of interest. If my retirement account invests in a mutual fund that holds a bunch of their stock, there's still a conflict of interest. The relationship doesn't have to be employment-based, or direct, to affect an editor's neutrality.
  • ...but if I have no idea what actual companies my retirement portfolio is invested in, then *poof* there goes my conflict of interest. So it doesn't just matter what the relationship is, it matters if the editor is aware of what the relationship is.
  • It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to ban the cashier, but allow the former employee and the competitor to edit freely. At the same time, what are we going to do, require everyone to disclose their employer, their former employers, the competitors of their employers and former employers, their stock portfolio, their favorite burger joints, etc.? That's not practical.

All of these, I think, miss the mark, because looking at the relationship only tells us about potential conflicts of interest. To see if an editor is actually conflicted, we have to look at their edits. If the edit is neutral, policy compliant, an improvement to the encyclopedia, then that proves that the editor does not have a relationship with the article subject that interfered with their ability to make that edit. So the adage, "focus on the edit not the editor" strikes again. Ultimately, if the edit is a good edit, it doesn't matter who made it. If the edit is a bad edit, it doesn't really matter why. In either case, regardless of whether it's made by the CEO or head of PR, or a current or former employee, or direct or indirect stockholder, or a competitor, or whomever, if it improves the encyclopedia, the edit should be kept, and if it doesn't, the edit should be changed. Fixing a typo will almost always be an improvement to the encyclopedia. Adding a new menu item might be, if it's done in a non-promotional neutral way. It'll be much easier to determine whether the menu item addition is policy-compliant, than it will be to determine whether the editor who made it likes hamburgers or used to work at Burger King. Looking at an editor's potential COI is just a subset of looking at an editor's motivations, and that's never something we can do accurately, and so it's rarely worth taking the time to try.

I guess part of the idea behind crowdsourced editing is that biases and conflicts-of-interest will cancel each other out: the McDonald's fan and the Burger King fan will have to come to consensus on what the Hamburg hamburger article should say, and that's going to get us to neutrality–not by having perfect, unbiased editors, but by having a good diversity of editors acting in good faith. The editors don't really need to know who owns stock in which company, so much as they need to look at the edit and the sources and see if they match. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't have guidelines that set forth certain relationships that have an unreasonably-high risk of COI (like CEO), but ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding, i.e., in the editor's edits.

Sorry this was so long. If I had more time, I would have made it shorter. Levivich 03:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mind that it's long. I read it all, and I admire the time and effort it must take to write something brilliant like that. That Pascal quote is appreciated. I mostly agree with you. It's not that I nessecarily disagree with you at the same time - it's possible you think the same thing, but just haven't mentioned it in this discussion.
I think that paid editing is different from a typical COI; there's definitely some overlap, but a paid editor needs to disclose, might not do that (even though it's against the terms of use to not disclose), and shouldn't directly edit the article. They should declare their COI, since they definitely have one as a paid editor and make their suggestions on the talk page.
In my opinion, an editor who has a strong COI (to the extent that it probably will affect the edits they make to a particular article), should declare it and place their suggestions on the talk page. There's nuance to what exactly counts as a strong COI, but there's a lot about that already in the above discussion.
So I guess as a conclusion, I'm asking if you think we kind of agree on the same things? I've made assumptions before about people, and well...jumping to conclusions has the potential for a terrible outcome. Maybe not here specifically, but in general. That's why I try to avoid making assumptions in the first place.
Anyways, it really is nice talking to you. I don't see many other editors that joined from 2018 around here, although maybe I'm just not looking in the right places. Also, you have an amazing user page; I tend to click those before I talk to people, partly as a way to remind myself that everyone who edits Wikipedia is unique and has a different way of presenting that to the world. Also, a lot of user pages (including yours) are just plain awesome - I remember seeing a link to the April fool's RfA for Cluebot on someone's user page, and I can't forget for the life of me how amusing it was to read it all. Clovermoss (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Correction: the Rfa I was talking about was SineBot and here is the link: [12]. Clovermoss (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Aww thanks Clover! Yes, I agree, well, I think so. The safest thing to do is for everyone to just avoid editing anything with which they have a potential COI. I mean, does the cashier really need to be the one to fix the typos on the McDonald's article? Surely someone who is not employed can do it instead? Avoid even the appearance of impropriety is a worthy goal.
But while that may be true for McDonald's, there are many articles where there just aren't many, or any, editors maintaining them. An editor with a COI may be the only editor working on a certain article. In that case, if they avoid it, the article just won't get maintained, or even written in the first place. Is it better for the encyclopedia if we don't cover notable but obscure topics, out of an abundance of caution about COI?
And avoiding the appearance of impropriety can lead to (in my opinion) absurd results, such as Marit ayin, the concept that you should not only avoid doing what is forbidden, but also avoid doing what is permitted if other people might think it's forbidden, even if it's not actually forbidden. It would be equally silly if I avoided editing the McDonald's article because I liked their burgers.
Disclosing COI is better than editing when you have a COI and not disclosing it, obviously. What if an editor doesn't want to "out" themselves, e.g., by disclosing their employer? Then the editor has a choice: don't edit the article, or disclose. That sounds great, but suppose I live in Myanmar and I speak Burmese and English. Outing myself might get me in trouble with the government; I can avoid writing about Burmese article subjects, but if everyone in Myanmar who speaks English does that, we'll have no coverage of Burmese topics on Wikipedia.
Paid editing is a special subset of COI. A paid editor can't possibly be neutral. I would argue that anyone working in, say, the marketing or public relations departments of McDonald's, would be a "paid editor" when they edit the McDonald's article, or functionally indistinguishable from a "paid editor", even if "edit Wikipedia" isn't technically part of their job description.
Having paid editors disclose makes sense, of course, if for no other reason than out of fairness to our readers (so they know where the content is coming from), and also to attract extra scrutiny of the edits, to ensure they're neutral (since it can be nearly impossible for a paid editor to maintain neutrality).
But if you really believe in crowdsourced editing as a way of arriving at neutrality–that voices of opposing views will compromise and result in a neutral article, that having many eyeballs will counteract the ability of any one editor to skew an article–then it shouldn't matter if a few members of the crowd are being paid. Consensus should overcome it. So, disclosure is perhaps irrelevant.
Yet, there's still the issue of the obscure but notable articles. I personally believe that most paid editors (declared and undeclared) are working on obscure articles–because most articles are obscure. Even though Wikipedia as a whole is crowdsourced editing, not every article is actually "crowdsourced". Many articles (I don't know how many, but I bet it's most) are written or maintained by one or a few editors. The risk that paid editors will skew such articles is very high.
The answer to all of this is more editors, especially in areas where we don't have enough editors, like the developing world. Disclosure rules and COI guidelines can help strike a balance between extremes, but ultimately we need more eyeballs on articles so that we can achieve neutrality through crowdsourcing. Then it won't matter if people don't follow the COI or PE rules.
Thanks for the SineBot RfA link–hilarious! Levivich 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I think we're on the same page, although you added a few things I hadn't really thought about before. Yes, I think more editors is a great long-term goal, especially since the number of active editors have been decreasing instead of increasing for awhile now (unless there's some key information about this that I'm not currently aware of).
Sometimes I wish I was around here when Wikipedia was more of a "thriving" place so I could talk about how it used to be, but even if I had started editing earlier... I'm 17 and I was born into a world where the existence of Wikipedia is older than I am. It's kind of weird/interesting when I do stuff like archive pages like Talk:Canada Day, because I can read discussions from when I was quite literally an infant and unaware of whatever was happening across the world at the time.
Anyways, I'm glad you liked the RfA for SineBot. If you find statistics and whatnot to be intriguing, I like to check out stuff like WP:Time Between Edits from time to time. I should probably go and improve an article that I want to improve. Well, I do have the long weekend (Canadians celebrate thanksgiving in October), so maybe I'll get to that sometime soon. It really is nice talking to you. I don't mind Clover as a nickname, I came up with my username by combining two random words, which happened to be Clover and Moss, hence Clovermoss. Clovermoss (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's wild that there are people who have not known a world without Wikipedia. That's the new normal now, though. WP:Time Between Edits is very cool, thank you for sharing that! I think that's going on my userpage. Also, I love "Clovermoss" as a username, it's an excellent and unique compound word. I can't support, though, Canada taking our Columbus Day Native American Day and calling it "Thanksgiving". That is nothing but cultural appropriation, I mean who does that?   Pleasure talking with you as well! Levivich 18:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Things that might workEdit

Based on that link you sent, and his response if any, plus the talk page discussions, one might successfully argue that molobo should be restricted to Talk on those articles on the basis that his English is not sufficiently good to be reliable in article space, given the contentious nature of the subject. Admins like narrowly focused proposals that fix a clear and easily understood problem. But it does need a little more context - not much, but some. How consistent is he in downplaying Jews as victims? We want to understand, is this an anti-Semite or a proud Pole. The former is a problem, the latter not so much. I think you'd agree there, right? I find it hard to see molobo as malevolent, he seems more eager than evil to me. Do you see the same? Guy (help!) 22:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Placeholder; these are excellent questions; it'll take me a day or so to find examples and compose a response regarding context (about macro trends on WP, not about the editing history of any particular editor). Levivich 00:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Molobo is malevolent, of course, but I don't think they're hewing closely enough to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, either, and it's disrupting a wide range of articles. For specifics, see the stuff I've posted at their talk page and in the Icewhiz appeal thread at Jimbo's. It's a content dispute at its core but from where I'm sitting, changing "Jews" to "Poles and Jews" in various forms is like changing "US Civil War" to "War of Northern Aggression". Levivich 01:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Guy, being proud (and Polish) is fine, but being a TP-squatter noisily flapping flags "might be unlikely" to go unnoticed, given the larger context: ( 2016, 2019 ) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 05:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
What's "malevolent"? "Malevolent" is just someone you don't agree with, and that possibly sacrifices virgins to the devil. Molobo is clearly not "malevolent" in that sense. What he is, though, is highly tendentious and negligent. Back when I went through his edits in preparation to the ArbCom case, I noticed he tends to follow specific ethnocentric themes[13] (some of the diffs I filed as "evidence",[14] most I didn't); his sourcing practices are wanting,[15][16][17]([18])[19] he often introduces errors in his edits,[20][21][22] and has a particularly annoying way of dealing with disagreement.[23]
Some examples, in no particular order:
  • After losing an RfC he tries to mitigate the "damage" by throwing a bunch of raw data into the article ([24] -> [25]), then disappears from the discussion and leaves others the jobs of justifying and cleaning up the text.[26]
  • Here he removes well-sourced material (read the whole paragraph) and picks a random statement to replace it, then when other statements are added he rejects his own source as unreliable.[27][28]([29])[30][31][32][33][34]
  • As his sources turn out to be inadequate (either because of quality, or because they don't state exactly what he needs them to state) he gradually adds more and more sources, until finally we have around 15 of them. Then he disappears from the discussion, and doesn't reappear until after I post messages at two noticeboards and Sandstein's TP.[35][36] At some point he asks that I number my points so he can follow, which kind of looks like "trolling" since I've been numbering them all along; I try to give him the benefit of the doubt - maybe he meant "manual" numbering, since that appears on TPs as well? - but when he eventually says he "noticed" the numbering, I wonder if he wasn't trolling all along. Another weird thing that happened was VM accusing me, in the second part, of PA; turns out at some point Molobo started making small changes to the article without pointing them out in the discussion - without even giving an indication that he's going to compromise - so when I repeated my comments later, assuming he hasn't changed his position of two weeks, it looked like I was being argumentative.
    You'll notice he only took from the discussion the best 2-3 sources he came up with - this is what you saw on Jimbo's TP when he mentioned Lemkin, Snyder and Naimark, as well as the Nuremberg trials - but he still ignored or even blocked any attempts to "clean up" the other ~ten. Eventually I just sorted them in-place and let it go for the time being.[37]
  • He adds this list on Jimbo's TP; you'll notice that the indentation is wrong, and that he copied into the source a rendered {{t|main}} template, which then rendered on Jimbo's TP as "Main article: Jimbo Wales". He fixed the second problem after I framed it with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}), but the indentation is still wrong, and so is the vote count (see in the current revision: [38]). This isn't the first time: Ealdgyth's already commented on his tendency of copying a text without thoroughly checking what it is he's copying.[39]) Further down he makes a couple of self-explanatory comments about Grabowski (in two different places), that may or may not be violations of sourcing DS.
  • In my comment to Ermenrich[40] I noted how Molobo often tries to litigate a "lost cause" in one article by jumping to another where it wasn't discussed. You saw a variation of it in the Żegota article (RfC turned "data dump" turned table), as well as in his "reordering" of victim populations in several articles at the same time.[41] I believe Ermenrich saw it as well. The first time I realized this was a method of his was in a discussion about the "JUST" act - an act of Congress that involves the US in issues of property restitution in Eastern Europe. Molobo makes a series of changes inserting irrelevant and/or popular sources to one article,[42] and when they get rejected[43][44] he just goes to another article and inserts them,[45] accompanied by more grammar and punctuation errors and another "data dump" ("who paid what when"). This, by the way, is a violation of ArbCom's "Fait accompli" ruling.
  • (Also in the ArbCom case) He was looking to justify a statement about international law, in the same context of property restitution. Now, "international law" is a relatively new concept, and most of Poland was never part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, so if your source mentions the "Hapsburg premodern period" it should really raise some alarm bells. Turns out this source was about the Czech Republic,[46] and the other one about Germany,[47] and neither dealt with "international law" in the sense that was used in the article.
  • (Also in the ArbCom case) In the "good Poles, bad Jews" category one edit requires explanation: Yitzhak Shamir was Israel's PM in the 1980's. He was born in Poland, and moved to Mandatory Palestine (the precursor to Israel) in his 20's. His entire family was murdered in the Holocaust, and he himself died in 2012. One notorious comment of his about antisemitism in Poland re-surfaced earlier this year, and drew strong and justified criticism from across Poland. But Molobo - a Wikipedian - cannot criticize, so what better way to retaliate against a dead Israeli PM than add to his article a hearsay statement about his father being Judenrat - a Nazi collaborator?[48]
  • And this I discovered not half an hour ago; notice not only what he added, but what he removed.
Recall this editor has been around for ten years, and still has to be reminded by an admin to use a spellchecker;[49] and yet never admits a mistake, and has no qualms taunting others when he thinks they're in the wrong. He "cherry-picks" from sources both good and bad, then accuses others of "Holocaust revisionism" - a horrific charge, for which he never apologizes. On the boards he will behave, but otherwise expect the same pattern: a few "cherry-picked" diffs supporting longer, FORUM-ish replies; and wild accusations against anyone he's had a content dispute with. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Enough. You have commenting on me on several pages day by day.If you have a issue with my editing, do please address in normal formal way on appropriate venue intended to solve disputes. For example in the above edits you left out insinuation that Shamir's father was "murdered" by Poles while leaving out the fact that he was member of Judenrat.I am fine with debating how article should look like, and what should be included. You already issued your grievences at Arbcom and were rebuked. You continue to do so since it ended and have been already rebuked to stop doing so at least two times, because the case is closed-you were presented with venue to ask to review the decision.Again, take these complaints and discussions to the appropriate venue through dispute resolution,You have limited options to re-present the same arguments from a case that has already gone before the committee and a decision has been made. There is no unlimited appeal process. You may consider WP:AFTERARB. I suggest you do so, instead of posting accussations against me on numerous pages.In fact you have already been asking raised some of the above to other admins and have been rebuked[50], and asked to use proper venues to resolve disputes[51]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Just answering an admin's question, Molobo. Nothing to fret about.
Regarding ArbCom: the committee chose to narrow the case to the two parties, and didn't commend, rebuke nor comment on anyone else, and neither did Sandstein (this is the same thread I mentioned in one of the examples above [52]).
Regarding the Haaretz quote: it was in reply to this: [53][54][55]. François Robere (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy, the best example I can give right now is the history of Salomon Morel and Racism in Poland. (To be clear to talk page watchers, I'm not suggesting Guy should use his tools or do anything about it, just offering examples to answer the questions he's asked about the exact scope and nature of the problems I've been complaining about.) It's a content dispute, but look back at the last 50 or 100 revisions, and it's the same damn content dispute... one big slow motion edit war... despite the page protection and intervention of an admin back in June at Salomon Morel (in September at Racism in Poland), it's the same exact thing just in the past week. It's very frustrating, and I'm not even an active participant in the topic area, I've only become aware of this whole issue in the last month or so. Should I go revert and join the edit war? Start yet another talk page thread? Yet another AE/ANI/AN report? At Racism in Poland the other day, I reverted and so did other editors, and there was a talk page discussion, and it's been making progress. So what happens? The slow motion edit war moves to Salomon Morel. It's like a giant game of whack-a-mole, at least that's how it seems to me. In a few weeks or a month, we'll be back to rearranging the section headers at Racism in Poland. Around and around we go... Levivich 05:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to comment since I think trying to bring this to the NPOVNB earlier made Molobo more aggressive towards me, but I'll say this: a failure to use the tools of consensus is definitely present here. Look at Talk:Walter Kuhn and you'll notice that Molobo barely used the talk page. To focus on just a single example: Despite a long discussion on whether or not we should say Kuhn was a Nazi in the first sentence of the lead (here), to which Molobo never responded, he recently reinserted it and then edit-warred about it [56], [57]. Around the same time he inserted it originally, he made a similar edit to other German scholars who had been active/compromised during the Nazi era [58], [59], thus spreading the content dispute to articles where no one was opposing him (whack a mole). I've refused to engage him in this, but everyone else has too, so it just remains.
Molobo's POV is not a recent problem either. He added this [60] to Gustav Stresemann back in 2017, information which is unsupported by the sources he cited, as was pointed out on the talk page in 2018 (Talk:Gustav Stresemann#Poland Paragraph). The article Kulturkampf contains an entire section about the Kulturkampf being against Poles added by Molobo Kulturkampf#Kulturkampf in Germany#Anti-Polish aspect of Kulturkampf, and has for years. In the earliest versions, actually, the entire article was about how the Kulturkampf was primarily an anti-Polish action [61], again authored by Molobo. In the current, much shorter version, the sources here are also highly suspect. This is cited and does not even use the word Kulturkampf. Christopher Clark is cited but says nothing about the Kulturkampf being against Poles (besides the two words occurring in separate chapter sections on the same page) [62]. And one source is in Polish.
I could go on about this ad nauseam, but I will conclude by saying that Molobo's POV and questionable sourcing methods are a well-established and pervasive problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
He added this [57] to Gustav Stresemann back in 2017, information which is unsupported by the sources he cited That's false. The info is certainly in the source, it's just paraphrased. Annexation stuff is on pg 38. Soviet Union stuff is on pg. 39. Propaganda stuff is on pg. 39 and 40. Economic stuff is on pg. 49.
You've only been on Wikipedia for a year, it seems. During that time, your interactions with MyMoloboaccount have been limited. It seems. Your claim that there's problems with Molobo's (why are you not referring to him as MyMoloboaccount's but rather by a username from many years ago?) are "well-established" and "pervasive" has no basis given your apparent short tenure and limited experience on Wikipedia. Afaik. Volunteer Marek 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Your interpretation of the source is incorrect - it does not support Molobo's claims. It nowhere says that Stresemann plotted to collaborate with Soviet Union against Polish statehood. In fact, the article states: "On another front, Stresemann courted the favor of the Soviet Union. Amicable relations with Russia would protect Germany from utter dependence upon the good will of the West and would intimidate Poland" (p. 39). The only thing the article supports is that Stresemann wanted to annex certain areas and revise the borders, as anyone with the ability to read JSTOR can read for themselves [63]. It's an attempt to defeame a Noble Peace Prize winner as a warmonger by cherry-picking elements of the source and placing them out of context. As to why I'm calling him that, why do I need to write out MyMoloboaccount exactly? Other users just call him Molobo.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Marek, you're in violation of your T-ban. This discussion directly touches on the "history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland".[64] François Robere (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
And this is clearly NEITHER of those, obviously, so please stop trying to manufacture artificial sanctions for other editors, whether MyMoloboaccount or myself. There's been way too much WP:BATTLEGROUND already and it's time to let it go. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Prior to World War II, Kuhn belonged to the German minority in Poland. [...] Kuhn moved to Germany to take a professorship at the University of Breslau. In 1940, he joined the Nazi party.[2] During the war, he was involved as an advisor in various Nazi plans of ethnic cleansing aimed at Jews, Poles and their replacement by German settlers from further east.

Sorry VM, but there is no ambiguity here, you should not be violating your topic ban. This is rather disrespectful of the very lenient sentence you received. (imo) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, this is a very obvious violation of your TBAN. Vermont (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I struck my comment, but seriously, my comment was solely about Gustav Stresemann, and interwar Poland, which I am NOT topic banned from discussing or editing. The topic ban is not even "broadly construed". Volunteer Marek 17:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:TBAN bans apply to sections as well. This section clearly deals with content and behavior in that topic area, including articles like History of the Jews in Poland, Jan Grabowski (historian), Racism in Poland and Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017. François Robere (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Who knows, maybe the clerks will be along any moment now to study the diffs leading to those references all JuMbLe-CapPeD into <ref> tags, the half-typed mainspace words, the glorious ref-stacks, the ping-pongy battling over labels and section ordering.... yourMoloboAccount, as a gesture of GF would you consider fixing the reference? It remains -- to this day -- in all caps, sticking out like a {{sore|button}} from the footnotes section. Your reference still doesn't have a link to j-stor... your caps could have EVEN BEEN BLUE. The paraphrase in mainspace is caricatural, which dissuades anyone, including me, from fixing the reference. Why don't you use {{cite}}, o Molob o Count? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC
@JzG and Levivich: Comments? François Robere (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
François Robere, if you look at Molobo's contribs, they just went on a {{long wikibreak}}. I'm hopeful that the conversation here, on their talk page, and at Jimbo's talk page, will sink in and lead Molobo to take these concerns on board and adjust their editing accordingly. Meaning, specifically, that they won't be putting these same edits or types of edits (as have been extensively documented at this point) back again when they return. If they do, then I think unfortunately it will need to go to ANI (which I think would be a better forum than AE, because AE has consistently failed to address these types of issues in the past). But I'm really hopeful that won't be necessary–that the extensive discussion that's been had so far will have a positive effect. Levivich 15:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
FYI... François Robere (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Well that didn't last very long. He's actually added some (apparently good) sources on the Kulturkampf being related to Antipolonism, so I view that as a positive development anyway.--Ermenrich (talk)

DYK for St Rufus ChurchEdit

 On 15 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St Rufus Church, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the nave entrance doors of St Rufus Church in Keith, Moray, Scotland, incorporate a two-sided memorial to the First and Second World Wars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St Rufus Church. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, St Rufus Church), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


I have posted a report at ANI to which you may reply here. TFD (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Disbarred anyone recently?Edit

Anyway, listen, if you’re still the humor conduit, how about WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT? EEng 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

EEng, sorry for my delayed reply, I was busy putting together an ethics complaint to submit to my local state bar.[FBDB] Personally, I'm more about WP:INFUSINGCONFLICT, but I'm not sure what you mean by "how about"? What about it? Did you notice my recent addition? Levivich 04:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I meant.. I thought you were part of the Signpost humor team. I didn’t notice your addition, actually, so thank you for that. EEng 06:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh! Nope, I’m not a part of the Signpost. But I do think that essay would make a good humor article for the Post. Levivich 13:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You learn something new every day!Edit

I have been a wikipedia editor over 14 years and an admin over 13, and I haven't seen {{jk}} until today! Thanks! --rogerd (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Rogerd, that's because I just created it today. I can't believe it didn't exist before! Levivich 21:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I feel a little less dumb now, but I see that you referenced {{FBDB}}, which is 3 years old and also new to me today. You could probably crawl around WP for a lot of years and find stuff you hadn't see before. --rogerd (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


You've [intentionally?] taken my remarks out of context. My point is that he's following WP:PAID (emphasis mine):

"Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries."
He has done so.
"The conflict of interest guideline further advises editors to place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters), and to supply a clearly visible list of their paid contributions on their main user page. The template {{paid}} can be used for this."
As such, this is not a requirement.

So, with all that said, he'd been compliant and hasn't hidden anything...which was my point. Buffs (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If there's some arcane point that's been missed, it's been a minor oversight that can be easily corrected. Buffs (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary table for Renaming Climate change articleEdit

Hi, in my own userspace I have started a table in which I am trying to super-succinctly summarize the Not-Votes and perspectives that have been raised. This is a work in progress, but I have at least finished my initial data-entry for what you've said. If you would like to me change anything, please use the talk page attached the table. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, that's great – thanks for all the work you're putting into this! It's a worthy endeavor. Levivich 17:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
You are most welcome! This has bugged me for a l-o-n-g time, but I have never been able to move the needle. It's the arrival of Femkemilene that has broken the log jam, and her ability to juggle both technical details and difficult editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Making the news?Edit

Please see [65]. It's about a man. I have very little idea what's going on here, but you seem to be at least tangentially involved. Any comment for The Signpost? Just drop a few words onto my talk page or send me an email. You might even write that humor column I suggested a while ago about this. Any comment appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, my involvement is that I uploaded the picture. But I'll email you some details later, I think there's a pretty good story behind how that picture got onto that article. Levivich 16:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

...but why?Edit

I dont see any point in notifying experienced users about discretionary sanction, especially not for such a broad topic like BLPs. May I know what prompted you to notify him? —usernamekiran(talk) 17:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi kiran, of course you may! It was this ANI thread. Levivich 17:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


It's a sad state of affairs when you feel everybody would be better off if I wasn't seen thanking you for defending evidence-based board behaviour. I don't want to end up getting myself or you in trouble after all. That fear is part of the wiki-way. Sartre, in a book I've never really fully understood, called it the "fraternity terror" of the fused group. The Maoists probably would have the digestion machine be perpetual. Surely, there's a simpler waytm. Thanks for standing up for facts. Again. I know I'm not the only one you've done it for, but I'm embarrassed to have been such a needy ca(u)se. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Sashi; no need to be embarassed. (But it would make it a lot easier if you went out of your way to be nicer to the admins. This is one of those "kill them with kindness" situations.) Levivich 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal guideline workshopEdit

Morituri Te Salutan (note portal at right)-EEng

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [comment] || 21:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete all por Sorry, that's kind of become an involuntary reaction. Thanks for the invite, Scottywong, I signed up. Levivich 22:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Oof, I'm not considered a power user after all this time... RIP (talk page stalker)MJLTalk 01:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom noticeEdit

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Incensed editors storm Fort ArbCom. Note the centrally placed portal, an object with great and terrible power; such portals were much feared by historical Wikipedians. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!
Thanks for the notification ToThAc. What's your inclusion criteria for parties? Levivich 21:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it would just be users who have frequently commented on portal deletion discussions in general, and are at least fairly familiar with the locus of the problem. ToThAc (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
ToThAc, I certainly meet that criteria, but I think you're missing a number of other editors who also meet that criteria (I'd suggest even more so than me). (Some of the missing people, for example, have already commented on the Arbcom case.) I hate to name names but I'd ask you to review the list of editors who have edited Portal:Transport (the most-recent, most-contentious discussion) [66] as well as editors who have been invited to the portal guideline workshop. Anyone who's on both lists (I am) should probably get an invite to this party. Levivich 21:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm kinda adding parties as I go at this point. Don't worry, I'll eventually try to add in as many as possible. ToThAc (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Adding parties as you go. Oy vey. EEng 22:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: I know it's sort of a slippery slope, but even I was unaware of the true scope of users involved up until now. ToThAc (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
ToThAc, I'd be careful about pulling in too many parties. A focused approach on the worst offenders and the most involved people is likely to get much faster and drama-free resolution than casting a net that takes in every experienced editor that has touched a portal discussion. This case will already be super contentious, please try to not make it worse. But also, kudos to opening a case, someone had to do it sooner or later, things were getting out of hand :) Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the workload involved in naming a couple dozen parties to an Arbcom case. Also, no one would take it upon themselves to do all this unless they really, really thought it would help solve the problem.
Also also, I think for the second year in a row, we have an Arbcom candidate who is also a party to an Arbcom case during the election. I wonder how often that happens.
Also also also, the parties outnumber the arbitrators 3:1. 2:1 if you count the clerks. I think we should storm the keep and free all the sanctioned pages and editors. Levivich 22:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Memo about the fire at the insurance factory: longer spoons will be needed to access portal space. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I ran at the first chance I got. Levivich 23:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Live stream of parties being added: [67] EEng 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#New_sectionEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#New_section. (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


What article are you accusing me of engaging in "original research"? I have done no such thing. What is very suspicious is how you reverted my edit on Polish People's Republic to that of PRL Dreams, a user with (Personal attack removed). The edit you revert subscribes to communist propaganda, since in his edits he omitted the words "occupied"/"annxed" etc. and attempted to replace them with "freed" or "liberate". Which is false, and revisionist. Please do not accuse me of engaging in "original research" whilst reverting the edits back to a user who is engaging in the same exact thing you accuse me of doing. - (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi 47. The potential OR was at Ruth Deech, Baroness Deech and Beneš decrees. You're right about Polish People's Republic, I should have reverted back to the October 21 version rather than November 15–I agree with your reversion back to October 21, thanks for doing that. The potential OR there was this edit, which I don't think is supported by the article body or sources, but it's perhaps more of an WP:NPOV than an WP:NOR thing. Either way, please start a discussion at Talk:Polish People's Republic to see if there's consensus for those changes before reinstating them. At Kielce pogrom, I'm reverting your edit per WP:BRD. I believe I'm the fourth editor to do so in the last few weeks. Please start a discussion at Talk:Kielce pogrom to see if there's consensus for those changes before reinstating them. Finally, please don't make personal attacks about editors being biased, etc., whether they're true or not. I removed the one in your post above. I posted a welcome template on your talk page that has links to some of our most important policies and guidelines. Please let me know if you have any questions, and welcome to Wikipedia. Levivich 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI where I mentioned youEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lera Loeb. I mentioned you in relation to an AfD you participated in without suggesting you did anything wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Nil! An ANI notice "without suggesting you did anything wrong" is a refreshing change of pace for this talk page. :-) Levivich 15:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Glad to be of service :-) Anyway by way of explanation, although not everyone agrees, I feel the ANI notification requirements apply whenever an editor's behaviour is discussed in a critical way on ANI even if there's no suggestion of sanction, especially when they are directly named. And this applies even if you didn't open the thread but are now discussing some editor who isn't an existing participant, and hasn't been notified. I'm nonplussed about doing it when you aren't criticising the editor, but a risk there is that the thread can easily morph and someone else criticises the editor and maybe it's even now the main focus of the thread. And this editor is now being talked about "behind their back" as it were. But it's difficult to fault anyone because the first editor to bring them up maybe didn't feel it necessary since it was largely an aside. And the next editors assumed they'd already been notified. And so it goes. After a dispute with another editor, which lead to contemplation on my part, I've been a lot more diligent in informing anyone I bring up who hasn't been notified already (and isn't already a part of the discussion), even in cases like this where I can't imagine there will be criticism of the editor. But I generally tack a comment on the end with such notifications just to let the editor know they can probably just ignore the thread, and also try and avoid unnecessary worry. (Of course this means there is a risk the editor will ignore the thread even if it morphs. But it's not possible to deal with every eventuality, no matter how much I try. Which also tends to lead to these long comments :-P) Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your long comment, Nil :-) especially if said discussion is happening on a "high-drama" noticeboard like ANI. I really do appreciate you taking the time to post a talk page notification, particularly because pings don't always go through. The "this is not a filing against you" disclaimer is also key–it not only helps avoid panic by the recipient, but also informs talk page watchers and leaves a clear record for the archives. Thanks again! Levivich 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case OpenedEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


I appreciate the refactoring job in the she RfC. I've unfortunately added to your work-load. Would just go deal with it myself, but I keep getting edit conflicts, and it's also American Thanksgiving and I have to go to a turkey lunch!  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

While one might be forgiven for imagining Levivich's from another planet, in reality he's as American as apple pie. EEng 21:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I guess that's true: both I and apple pie were born in Europe but came of age in America. @Smack: I rerefactored... now that I'm awake from my post-turkey nap :-) Levivich 01:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


Just hanging out, cool as a cucumber until you rap me up in a salad.
19:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I really admire your PAYTALK verse (rap?).[68] Man, I wish I'd written that. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish! I've been referring to it as the epic Levivich–bradv rap battle. I think it makes me seem cooler. :-D Levivich 17:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
You are an ice cube. Oh, wait...that name's taken so we'll call you "Cucumber" 🥒. Atsme Talk 📧 19:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


I didn't even get the T-shirt!-- Deepfriedokra 03:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I think I know someone who might have one they don't need anymore. (Too soon?) Levivich 04:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
{{smh}} –MJLTalk 06:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


I've noticed a couple times recently you've made the argument to the effect of, "People are arguing about whether something is unambiguous so ipso facto it's not unambiguous." I've been thinking about this. There's definitely some truth to that and I don't think I disagree with your ultimate conclusion in either case. However, no matter the standard, even unambiguous, there are going to be edge cases. And in those edge cases "is this unambiguous or merely clear?" there will be disagreement. So I'm not ultimately persuaded by the inherent "people disagree so obviously it must not be that" line of thinking - but the argument has gotten me to think :). You seem like the kind that might be interested in this kind of thinking so I thought I would share and only post here in a philosophical sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I'm a metatheory geek :-) Unambiguous means "not ambiguous", and "ambiguous" means "open to multiple interpretations", so unambigious = not open to multiple interpretations = only one interpretation. And of course that implies only one reasonable interpretation. Assuming a scenario where there are only two possible interpretations, X and !X, one might look at the ambiguity spectrum like this:
Spectrum 1:
unambiguously X | <--- ambiguous --> | unambiguously !X
Under the Spectrum 1 view, if the only reasonable interpretation is that it's X, then it's unambiguously X. If the only reasonable interpretation is !X, then it's unambiguously !X. If both X and !X are reasonable interpretations, then it's not unambiguously either, and so it's ambiguous. Assuming everyone is (1) competent and (2) acting in good faith, and "X" is subjectively and not objectively measured, then if there is disagreement, that means there are multiple reasonable interpretations, and therefore it's ambiguous. Disagreement = ambiguity.
However, one might see a more nuanced spectrum:
Spectrum 2:
unambiguously X | clearly X | probably X | <--- ambiguous --> | probably !X | clearly !X | unambiguously !X
Under Spectrum 2, people might disagree if it's unambiguously X or just probably X, but if all that disagreement is on the X side of the spectrum, then the disagreement doesn't mean that anyone thinks it's ambiguous, or anyone thinks it's !X. In that case, disagreement ≠ ambiguity.
When we're talking about reviewing CSD deletions at DRV, the standard is "unambiguously X" (X = "attack page" or "too-close paraphrasing" or whatever), so I think there is only one possible spectrum that applies:
Spectrum 3:
unambiguously X | <--- all other possibilities -->
So if ten admin who are DRV regulars (competent and acting in good faith) !vote in a DRV of a CSD, and five of them say "unambiguously X" and the other five say anything else, then my conclusion is it's not unambiguously X, because there is more than one reasonable interpretation: (1) unambiguously X, and (2) whatever the other five are saying.
One thing I think of when evaluating unambiguity is: if I think it's X, then if someone says it's !X, would I conclude that this person is either incompetent or not acting in good faith? Do I believe that any interpretation other than X is unreasonable?
Some say that if it's X, even if it's not unambiguously X, then per WP:NOTBURO, we shouldn't undelete it, because that would be a waste of time, if the page is very likely to be deleted anyway. I don't favor that view, though, because that just turns the DRV of a CSD into an AfD, where instead of the usual AfD participants you'd get from delsorting, the AfD participants are the small group of DRV regulars. And it's kind of a principle of DRV that DRV is not AfD.
I would be interested in having a CSD-undelete system that worked like this: if a page is CSDed, an editor can post to a CSD undelete noticeboard asking for it to be undeleted (notifying the tagging editor and deleting admin), and if any patrolling admin thinks it's !X, they can just undelete the page, at which point the page has to be taken to XfD to be deleted. I figure a CSD is basically one person saying "unambiguously X", and so if there is any other person who says !X, then it's ipso facto something other than unambiguous, because you have established that there are two reasonable interpretations–that of the deleting admin and that of the undeleting admin. (And admin are vetted, so we can reasonably assume they're competent and acting in good faith.) Levivich 06:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. Will definitely cogitate on it further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
If you ever have the inclination, I'd be curious to read how you analyze these issues, and generally what your algorithm is for evaluating deletion reviews. Levivich 19:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

What should I do?Edit

In Home Army you said this: [69]. Now they are saying I am five different users or a "meatpuppet" in: [70]. This is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeZ451 (talkcontribs) 07:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, Joe, I did say to Piotrus If you think it's a banned editor, you know where SPI is., but Piotrus recently filed two SPIs against Icewhiz that came back negative, so I can understand his reluctance to file a third. Luckily, the day after I said that, MyMoloboaccount, after not editing for three weeks, came back and filed an SPI accusing you of being Icewhiz based on you two using the same language, such as "wild claims", "low-quality sources", "right-wing media", and "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" (for talk page watchers, that's an infamous quote by Jan T. Gross, often quoted in discussions about Gross). That SPI page has now become an WP:EEML reunion to discuss who is who's meatpuppet, which is richly ironic; it seems the shoe is quite firmly on the other foot these days.
One might wonder why checkusers would even entertain this, and I think it's because the topic area has, in fact, been plagued by sockpuppetry. Case in point: even though Piotrus's SPI reports didn't connect any accounts to Icewhiz, it did find sockpuppetry by Yaniv (who, judging by his latest account names, has gained quite a strong grasp of Spanish profanity), so Piotrus's suspicions were well-founded. As another example, I still wonder about Seedsdough, an account that appears to have been created for the purpose of reverting you, Joe.
As for what you should do, my advice is to review WP:PROXY and then talk to Bbb23 and TonyBallioni (possibly by email) about your use of a proxy. If you are using multiple accounts, just pick one and save everyone a bunch of time. If you aren't, then sorry for the trouble, explain it to the checkusers, and they'll get it sorted. Levivich 09:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Restorer scriptEdit

Wow, how did that happen? I got a notification you had reverted me, but that turned out to be the least of it. I see you've self-reverted, and I'm not here to complain, but to ask about the User:BrandonXLF/Restorer script — it looks intriguing and potentially very useful, even though clearly kind of dangerous.😛 How exactly is it supposed to work? Bishonen | talk 16:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, when you’re looking at an article history, it puts a little “restore” link next to the “undo” link for every version, and when you click on it, it restores that version... instantly with no confirmation and no possibility to put in an edit summary. “One-click restore”. It’s the equivalent of looking at a diff and then clicking “restore this version” and then submitting a blank edit summary...but much faster.
This is useful for situations when rollback and undo would be cumbersome: (1) when reverting vandalism by multiple IPs/accounts, back to an lgv, or (2) in the rare instance you want to roll back more than one but less than all of an editor’s serial edits.
It’s dangerous for the same reason as rollback, especially on mobile, especially when you want to click the “prev” link to read a comment by Boing! said Zebedee, whose username is the exact right length to put the “restore” button right under the “prev” button on mobile, and especially when you have fat thumbs like me.
So clearly we’re going to have to rename Boing’s account to fix this issue. Either that or I have to research how to turn it off on mobile view.
The more dangerous aspect though is that it’s very similar to rollback but doesn’t require the rollback perm. Actually I had installed the script and used it for a while when patrolling vandalism before it occurred to me that I should apply for rollback perm because I’m basically using a script to get rollback functionality and I figured it was only a matter of time until the script was updated to require the rollback perm. Levivich 17:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Bishzilla's computer
Ha, I knew my username had to be good for something! 😛 Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I see the kind of edit summary you do get, from your edit. Hmmm. I'd be safer than you, I think, inasmuch as I edit from a steam-driven difference engine — I don't mess about with some phone — and so would be less vulnerable to accidentally reverting to the pesky young Boing!. But I do wish there was a way of adding something explanatory in the edit summary, because it's rare that I don't want to. I'll mull it over. Thanks for the full explanation. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC).
I think you can turn off the Restorer script on mobile view by simply moving it from your common.js to your vector.js page. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
OMG you're brilliant RexxS, thank you! You've saved me hours of reading to figure that out. Levivich 00:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer MeeEdit

Levivich, why should my !vote be tossed? I wrote the article last night, and defended it with guidelines and policies. I am puzzled. But thanks for seeing the merit in keeping the article. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a long-ish reply in mind and won't have a chance to write it until later, will ping when posted. Levivich 20:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I normally appreciate your very clear-headed remarks and your detail oriented !votes at AfD and ANI. However in this case, I am the article's starter. And the article was a few hours old when the editor place the AfD. I feel like I made some appropriate policy related arguments for keeping. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is rather odd for you to discount my !vote at AfD, and direct me to your talk page for discussion, and then you are unresponsive all day. I will ask you to please strike your comments at AfD. It is a disparaging comment and it is without merit. Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think your vote should be tossed because it makes assertions without evidence and addresses irrelevant issues:
    1. WP:GNG is easily met with multiple WP:RSs. – Assertion without evidence
    2. The nominator ignores our guidelines for WP:N and WP:V and makes a vague wave at a WP:BLP1E claim which clearly does not apply...I am sure the nominator knows that WP:BLP2E does not exist. – Nominator's conduct, and the state of the nominator's knowledge–like the state of the article–is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the topic is notable
    3. The rationale seems to be someone didn't like it before, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT now. – The nominator's rationale is also entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the topic is notable. Whether the nomination statement is the best one ever written, or totally piss poor, has nothing to do with whether or not the topic is actually notable. The nominator's statement might help !voters (if it's a good statement), but the !voters make up their minds about notability independently of the nominator. It's a !vote on the topic, not on the article, not on the nomination, and not on the nominator.
    4. FYI: The subject was world famous for her medical condition, and then again world famous for her crime. – Fame ≠ notability, but replace the word "famous" with "notable" and it's still an assertion without evidence
    5. We keep articles which meet the heavier burden of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.WP:OSE; the only relevant question is whether this article meets WP:N
    6. See: Juli Briskman AfD which I argued against keeping - I was wrong. – OSE
    7. Jennifer Mee has been in the news more than 10 years with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. – Assertion without evidence
    8. She has received international coverage in reliable sources. – Assertion without evidence
    9. This is an easy keep. – Assertion without evidence Levivich 03:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Insanely tedious response that I waited all day for. I am putting this in the ridiculous box and burying it in the backyard. Nomination rationales matter per WP:DELAFD. And international coverage is in the WP:BEFORE BBC etc. Mee in the news ten years per the research - simple math in 2007 she had the hiccups and in 2017 Pierce Morgan interviewed her. I am really surprised by your response here and I will still ask you to strike your comments discounting four votes other votes because you do not like them. We all have a style and we all do our best. your style is to break it down into minutia. Have a great holiday. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


You may wish to review these[71][72] (no need to get into the "meat" of the sources). Cheers. François Robere (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why you are not using my full account name and what is the above comment suppose to mean FR?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
YourMoloboAccount, <sigh>, why are you so demanding of others? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Man, I just posted a giant ANI thread about something unrelated. I'm going to go do something else for a while :-) Levivich 22:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
If you have any issues with my editing do try talking(non-aggressively) to me and going through dispute resolution process.Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


You have my respect for the principled report you opened at ANI. Although, as I mentioned there, the current climate does not support your proposal, perhaps in the not so distant future the WMF and T&S can set this right. Thank you, Levivich, for your principles and your courage. Take care. Dr. K. 01:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, K. It's a hill worth dying on. Levivich 03:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Eloquently put. I share your conviction. Thank you again and take care. Dr. K. 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@K: I remain optimistic that it will get better in the future, that these struggles are just the growing pains of a project leaving adolescence and entering adulthood. In diff diving, I noticed that you've been dealing with this for years and I saw your past efforts to improve the situation, so thank you for that, and take care as well. Levivich 04:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hahaha! You must have hit the Macedonian dispute road way back when. Gosh, you woke up so many memories. I don't know if you saw that (by now) grass-covered old road when the same culprit had made a list of editors based on their ethnicity. That was some (dubiously) fun time trying to debunk that crap. Levivich, we need you here like we need oxygen. Dr. K. 04:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It really goes back a long timeEdit

I somehow used to blame myself for FP@S's chronic problems about incivility. I thought he became what he became because somehow I was irritating him. I thought that my breath, and even my very existence was what irritated him. I used to blame myself for his behavior. At least until now. I finished reading now your updated list of all records of his incivility dating back to 2008 -that was long before I ever join Wikipedia-. This made me realize it is something that existed without me. I am grateful for bringing this list of records to my (and everyone's) awareness. Levivich. And if I may add, while the community failed (again and again) to do something about his incivility, at least we can rest assured that there are editors among us who are sensitive enough about this and that's good. I got to take a break from Wikipedia, I really need it. However, before I go, I wanted to say one more thing: Thank you. Not just for revealing to us FP@S's behavioral problems, but for being the reason I want to improve mine. I think my behavior has room for improvement.   And when I say that, I mean, not even retaliating with PA when they PA me. That won't be easy, as I am a hot-heated woman. But it has to be done. Have a good day and (soon) a happy new year. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 06:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks SilentResident, and you're welcome, and you're right–the issues at play here aren't really just about you, they're larger and broader than you, and than FP@S. I'm hoping the conversation taking place now will move the community closer towards a stable, global consensus on these issues. And I also hope it hasn't taken too much of a toll on your personally; I encourage you to take all the time off you need and remember that the encyclopedia will still be here when you're ready to return. And all of our behavior has room for improvement–just like the encyclopedia–we're never finished growing :-) Happy editing! Levivich 19:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The great WP:CIVIL schismEdit

I've been reading over many of the 'survey' posts at the current ANI discussion. It appears that two camps have developed. IMHO, the matter is heading towards Arbcom territory, due to the schism & the fact that an increasing number of participants, tends to decrease any chance of a consensus for anything. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, indeed, and may God have mercy on arbitrators' souls. They can make a decision on a specific instance of conduct; they will not be able to convince the community, at large, to agree on what "civility" is, or what should be done when it's not followed.
I often wonder what it would be like if we dealt with incivility in the same way we deal with vandalism. If an editor sees another editor make a personal attack, they post a warning template on the talk page. First an advisory, then a caution, then a warning, then a final warning. After that, an editor could be taken to ANI (or resurrect the old civility noticeboard), at which point at least there would be four warnings presumably issued by four different editors for four separate incidents. That's something to hang your hat on, as it were; uninvolved reviewing editors could determine if the four warnings were merited, and if they were, they'd feel confident in issuing a sanction. It would give us a way to process incivility complaints with multiple levels of review, as we do now for vandalism blocks, and for edit warring.
Of course, one of the big differences between civility and vandalism is that when you report an editor for vandalizing a page, nobody asks, "but was the page well-written?" Levivich 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Haha. Nice point. Anyway, your professional presentation at ANI stands on its own merits. It is technically excellent. I don't have the drive, time, or perhaps even the talent, to compose such a report. But for me, even your report, great as it was, would not have been a great motivation to return again at ANI. It was the combination of your report and the question that still remains unanswered: OCD, no OCD, CIR, no CIR, whatever disclaimer following these disclaimers, etc., the question remains. In the known annals of wiki history noone has purposely reverted someone's edits to a worse grammatical state than they stood before the arbitrary reversion, except in SR's case. Noone. Not one editor. Wholesale reversions of talkpage comments happen all the time. But not partial reverts like the one inflicted on SR. The complete reason for this revert still remains unknown. Forget about the ethics of inflicting such punishment on anyone. But this type of act has some resonance for me. It reminds me of the kid who comes and kicks your sandcastle to rubble on the beach, leaving your castle in an incomplete architectural state. We live in an era of unfettered communication. Why would anyone's good faith act include an attempt to garble someone's copiously crafted message back to some grammatically incorrect state? What is the purpose of such reversal? There is something about this act that makes it unique and special, and. as far as I know, noone in this wiki's history, or in the history of any other wiki, has ever inflicted this reversal on anyone else, except this one time. Dr. K. 02:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


Pretty much Levivich in five years if he doesn't stop spending so much time on Wikipedia.

I have some good news and some bad news. Famed macho man Randy Colley is dead. And not dead as in dead serious about going to Itchy and Scratchy land, either! The big one, as Sanford might say. Kaputski, as others might. "The Big Sleep", as Don Bluth foretold, "Goodnight Irene" in the words of the ghost who reportedly haunted Roddy Piper's remote Pacific Northwest hearth not so long ago and "deceased" if you're nasty. He was...ahem...69.

But life goes on, and when one door closes, another opens. I know you had your heart set on being a Crush-Hawk hybrid for the new year, but Colley was more than just an unwanted Smash, he was a damn fine Moondog. Who's a good Moondog? He was! Yes, he was. But now he's up there playing with Spike, Spot, Cujo, King, Lonnie and Anne Marie, which means there's nothing stopping us from taking over "the family business" down here. Think about it...ripped jeans, rope belts and spiked shoulderpads. We could have that gold in no time!

Chew it over, brother, and watch out for Mall Bearers this holiday season (they're all a bunch of phonies). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, December 16, 2019 (UTC)

The last of the Moondogs has fallen! Say it ain't so. But there's no time for tears; the legacy must shine on. I will think about it. Levivich 03:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Hulkster: OK I thought about it. Frankly, you had me at ripped jeans, and I already have the facial hair anyway, so let's do this. One condition: I ain't seeing Vince's doc. Levivich 04:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Certainly not. Shave a Moondog down and jack him up, you just get another jorts-wearing wish-granting white rapper, of which Wikipedia has Cena Nuff. If I'm taking a shot of juice in my bristled, grizzly ass to get me through this winter, it's going to be swamp juice, as nature, Molson and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett "The Bearman" Kavanaugh intended! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, December 17, 2019 (UTC)
The ideas expressed in the preceding post do not necessarily reflect views held by the Moondog Foundation and do not constitute an endorsement of boofing. The activities presented therein are entirely hypothetical and conditional upon any number of foreseeable and unforeseeable events occuring or not occuring in the fourth quarter of 2019. As the dawn of the new millenium approaches legal drinking age, we at MDTV encourage all viewers to insert foreign objects (solid, liquid, gas and plasma) into associated and/or independently-affiliated rectal canals responsibly, and remind all vengeful spirits how all trademarks remain property of their respective owners. So relax, Dave McKigney. Your bears are safe with us in the Swamps of Public Domain. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
I ain't seeing Dr. Young, neither. Levivich 03:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Good, that makes at least five of us. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, December 18, 2019 (UTC)

Don't everEdit

Do that again.

You're an obvious sock, and your contributions are laughable.

Behave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Begoon (talkcontribs) 15:34, December 19, 2019 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your personal attacks by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Levivich 16:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  (talk page stalker)MJLTalk 17:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Levivich, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,

★Trekker (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks Trekker! Merry Christmas to you too! Levivich 17:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

4 more sleeps!Edit

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme Talk 📧 19:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

😂 That was elfing awesome Atsme! Merry Christmas! Levivich 20:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at ChristmasEdit

  Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ST, and Merry Christmas! BTW I've been happy to see that your resignation from Arbcom hasn't meant your resignation from the 'pedia. Thank you for the great admining you've been doing, I know I'm not the only editor to notice and appreciate it! Levivich 16:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm feeling more relaxed since leaving the Dungeon. I don't always have the time, but when I do I like to do Good Article reviews and to close discussions such as AfD. I have always enjoyed doing those, and I think that's really where my strengths are. It's the tricky AfDs that get my interest! SilkTork (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thanks, DBigXray, happy holidays! Levivich 20:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidaysEdit

Thank you Interstellarity. Happy holidays! Levivich 20:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"WPJ:Music" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPJ:Music. Since you had some involvement with the WPJ:Music redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Levivich/Archive 4".