User talk:WaltCip/Archives/2023/August

Re: Re: Daikido

Asking here as Knight's seemingly doubled down on the position (as expected) that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Daikido's disruptive edits (now including a short rant on "the transgender insanity" in the USA and Wikipedia “censoring free speech” responding to that discussion) - do you believe there's reason for an ANI case against Daikido? I'd consider bringing one, but I'm not entirely sure there's enough recent incidents, nor am I experienced enough at ANI to truly know. The Kip (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@The Kip: I couldn't do it. The Don never dirties his own hands.

No, but in all seriousness, I think it makes a good case but we aren't quite at that point yet. It's pretty clear with comments such as Just look at the whole transgender insanity where people in the US are willing to kill each only to allow children to visit drag queen sex shows or whatever that he's riding a very fine line between incivility and crassness, and at this point, I think he's been warned that this is not satisfactory behavior. But the issue is it's an opinion, and we have to balance that out with the quality of his contributions, along with the fact that some editors and admins have a low opinion of WP:ITNC's process in general, to the point where they almost expect incivility or toxic behavior there.

I'd look out to see if it happens once more and then make a case for topic-banning from ITN. In the meantime, start gathering diffs. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Process bans

Re User talk:Lourdes—as I mentioned recently, I struggle with seeing policy proposals through to the end. But WP:TBAN really ought to have some wording to the effect of

Sometimes, a topic ban may refer to a specific administrative process on Wikipedia.

• By default, such process bans work the same as bans from content topic areas: They are broadly construed to include discussion of the process, not just participation therein.
• In some cases, however, a ban may specify that it refers only to participation in a process. This means the user is banned from commenting on pages at the specified venue or venues, as well as challenging or appealing individual decisions, but may still comment on the process more broadly.

A common form of process ban is from "XfD" or "deletion discussions". Unless stated otherwise:

• This is understood to refer to the six venues ending in "for deletion/discussion" listed at Wikipedia:Deletion process § Deletion venues. It does not cover Wikipedia:Requested moves, although some comments at that venue may still fall under a broad ban from XfD.
• This does not cover all proposed deletion or speedy deletion taggings or un-taggings, but does cover those pertaining to deletion discussions. [Maybe include: If a user who is banned from XfD (or an applicable XfD venue) marks one of their creations for speedy deletion while it is pending at a deletion venue, this should be treated as a deletion on the merits (i.e. not eligible for speedy undeletion).]
• A user who is subject to such a ban may make a single comment in a deletion discussion pertaining to a page that they have invested significant time in, and may answer direct questions from other users. These comments should be specifically about the page under discussion, not broader considerations. [Maybe include: An uninvolved administrator may revoke this exception—on a given page, set of pages, or in general—at their discretion if it is abused, logging the action as a modification to the existing sanction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.]

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think that's all completely reasonable. I guess one concern that may come up is whether messaging participants in an XfD on their Talk Page or on the article's Talk Page and making commentary on the XfD would be considered a violation of a broadly construed topic ban. From my experience, that tends to be the case. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Stats on World Athletic Championship

I unfortunately feel the need to collapse your comment so as to be impartial (versus seemingly being biased against certain users); that said, assuming your comment was in reference to the nominator - OOF. Genuinely good one there. The Kip (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@The Kip: I am a very bad lad. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)