User talk:BeLucky/2023/November
DYK for World constitution
[edit]
On 7 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article World constitution, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that since 1977, a world constitution has existed alongside a Provisional World Parliament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/World constitution. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, World constitution), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
You've got mail
[edit]
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
#prodraxis connect 18:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
[edit]
Hi, BeLucky. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C533:556A:35B0:32EF (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C533:556A:35B0:32EF (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2601:5cc:8300:a7f0:c533:556a:35b0:32ef
- That explains so quick reverts from you and not using your login account. It's the same state from which this person Glen is from. --BeLucky (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have nothing to do with Glen T. Martin, you need to read WP:AGF, WP:CCS, WP:PROD, WP:AFDHOWTO, and WP:CSD, specifically WP:A7. Please do not patrol pages until you do so, if you believe someone is editing logged-out in violation of WP:LOUTSOCK, you may file a report at WP:SPI. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C533:556A:35B0:32EF (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- You also need to read WP:BLP. You added ratemyprofessors, a non-WP:RS, to the article. Failure to follow to BLP may result in a block from editing. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C533:556A:35B0:32EF (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm responding here because BeLucky sent me an e-mail and asked me to comment. I have no opinion about the notability of the subject. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C533:556A:35B0:32EF has a solid understanding of deletion process. BeLucky if a WP:PROD is contested than the proper next step is to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD rather than restoring the contested PROD and engaging in an edit war.
- That said. I do think the decision to resort to an edit warring tag here was WP:UNCIVIL and not warranted. The anon IP should have tried to engage with you in a more cordial manner per WP:AGF first by using the talk page. I also think the decision to place an edit warring template without being logged into a registered account is at best unwise and rude and at worst a form of deceptive WP:Disruptive editing. While it's certainly permissible to edit as an unregistered user, contributing in any kind of controversial area such as deletion review as an unregistered user is frowned upon because of the lack of transparency. Further, an unregistered user shouldn't be involved in critiquing or coaching article patrollers. That role belongs to registered users who are operating with transparency and are clearly experienced editors with a searchable editing history for all to see; something we can not ascertain from a user with no obvious editing history. Given the user's evident familiarity with wikipedia policy, its clear a conscious choice was made to engage in an area in conflict without being transparent by not using a registered account. That behavior is concerning. I would strongly urge the IP to not engage further in controversial areas using an unregistered account for ethical reasons, and if they wish to continue editing in this area it would be wiser to create a registered account if they do not have one already.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- User:4meter4 registration is not required, and for numerous users is actually unwise. I patrol speedy tags among many other things it's come up at ANI before, where the prompt consensus was that my actions were wholly correct, including leaving an edit warring template, which is a standard notification and is not deceptive/disruptive, but the opposite as it informs users rather than keeping them in the dark to spring surprise blocks on them. You are welcome to review the filter log if you believe any removals from my IP range over the last year were improper, I am ready to account for all of them. You can start your own ANI, but that may be unwise.
- But this is off-topic. The page contains a WP:CCS, which means WP:A7 does not apply. I have not declined a PROD, and I am not normally inclined to do so unless further investigation shows the subject is more likely notable than not, a different, and higher bar than a simple credible claim of significance needed to decline a speedy. The article is now at AFD, where it likely should have been listed in the first place, the community now has the opportunity to assess the article's notability by getting input from multiple experienced users with varied backgrounds and diverse opinions. I will leave a comment there explaining my removal, but I do not anticipate doing the research needed to firmly assess notability, and I have not received any formal training on AFD, so I am less confident of my abilities there.
- Additional point, e-mailing other users and asking them to comment on a discussion is a violation of WP:STEALTH. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with your interpretation of deletion policy. That isn't the issue. I do think you could have handled this situation in a less hostile and much more civil manner by following policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and specifically the protocol at WP:RCD which you did not do. The whole tone of this discussion is entirely uncivil and full of accusations. WP:STEALTH would apply if this were a deletion discussion and there was an attempt to vote stack on a community page, but it's not. BeLucky was concerned about the warning placed on their personal talk page and it was absolutely fine for them to contact another editor about a message sent to them in user space on their own personal talk page. It would have been far better to never have used warning tags and started a discussion at Talk:Glen T. Martin per protocol at WP:RCD than to go down the path you chose. In this case BeLucky clearly was acting in good faith and simply needed a conversation about deletion policy and process to understand why the prod shouldn't be restored. If you haven't attempted to dialogue with the person you are having a conflict with on the talk page of the disputed article, then you shouldn't be giving out warnings unless it is something obviously disruptive like vandalism. I strongly encourage you to read (or re-read) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:AGF.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- User:4meter4 There was nothing "hostile" or "uncivil" about my handling of this situation. See WP:ASPERSIONS and maybe reread WP:AGF yourself. I made a routine removal of an incorrectly placed speedy tag giving a detailed explanation as to why [1]. BeLucky immediately tried to edit-war it back in without using so much as an edit-summary [2]. At that point many patrollers probably would have just rolled them back thinking vandalism, and hey AGF is not a suicide pact, but instead I supplied further information placing a standard message agreed upon by community consensus [3] and additionally explained that it was improper to edit-war a tag back in [4]. Despite this they readded the tag anyway, the 2nd time after having been informed they were acting in violation of policy and again without using an edit-summary [5]. That kind of behavior would often result in a projectspace report, however instead I continued to supply further information by leaving an additional standard message [6], while reiterating they still had the option of slow deletion, and even giving the link to the information needed to do so [7].
- Result, I finally get a reply with a heap of WP:ABF [8] that is clearly not an attempt to learn, engage in WP:RCD, or as far as I can tell accomplish anything useful. Rather than respond symmetrically I continued to provide information in the form of links to relevant information, that if followed will improve editor skill, and I even gave the information needed to file a report against me in case the belief was genuine and not just an ad hominem [9].
- WP:CAN, of which WP:STEALTH is a subsection, does not just apply to deletion discussions, but to all discussions. If this were done on-wiki I wouldn't have mentioned it since I do not have any reason to suspect you were notified for partisan reasons at this time. However as it says "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email, IRC, Discord, or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is strongly discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications." and as far as I can tell there is no significant reason. Nothing to file a report about yet, just something that should not be done again.
- I notice you have yet to provide any diffs you can specifically point to as being uncivil, that is inappropriate. I have been patient, and I hope I can continue to provide useful information, but I will not respond to evidenceless accusations made against me indefinitely, unless you decide to make them in projectspace, though I would advise against that. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with your interpretation of deletion policy. That isn't the issue. I do think you could have handled this situation in a less hostile and much more civil manner by following policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and specifically the protocol at WP:RCD which you did not do. The whole tone of this discussion is entirely uncivil and full of accusations. WP:STEALTH would apply if this were a deletion discussion and there was an attempt to vote stack on a community page, but it's not. BeLucky was concerned about the warning placed on their personal talk page and it was absolutely fine for them to contact another editor about a message sent to them in user space on their own personal talk page. It would have been far better to never have used warning tags and started a discussion at Talk:Glen T. Martin per protocol at WP:RCD than to go down the path you chose. In this case BeLucky clearly was acting in good faith and simply needed a conversation about deletion policy and process to understand why the prod shouldn't be restored. If you haven't attempted to dialogue with the person you are having a conflict with on the talk page of the disputed article, then you shouldn't be giving out warnings unless it is something obviously disruptive like vandalism. I strongly encourage you to read (or re-read) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:AGF.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sigh. I am now trying to be patient. The policy rule as articulated at WP:RCD is to start a talk page discussion. That is the very first step in any conflict dispute on wikipedia. The decision to not start a talk page discussion and go straight to a warning tag (particularly when you are an involved party in an edit war) is WP:UNCIVIL and acting in WP:BADFAITH. Per policy at WP:RCD you need to actually start a discussion on a talk page. An edit summary with linked policies in a revert is not a substitute for trying to engage with the person you are having a conflict with where they actually get a chance to respond and dialogue with you. The evidence here is a lack of evidence at Talk:Glen T. Martin where a conversation should have happened (or at least an attempt at one) before placing an edit war tag here. The decision to skip that mandatory step in conflict resolution and go straight to a warning is a form of hostile editing because it is a power move that shames the editor while unnecessarily escalating the conflict and sets the groundwork for further heightened conflict while removing the chance for an initial peaceful and shame free conversation. I have no intention of taking this to ANI, but if I see you doing this again to any other editor in any future conflict I will bring it there for a pattern of failing to follow protocol at RCD. You need to start with a talk page discussion before moving to a warning. With the exception of severe issues like vandalism, that is always standard practice and its policy. Lastly, WP:CANVAS only applies to community discussions on community pages. Your attempt to apply it to a discussion held in user space is entirely against policy and would not hold up anywhere. Users unequivocally have a right to seek council when dealing with a conflict brought to their personal talk page. I strongly suggest you strike out the accusation because it would not be received well if brought to ANI.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- User:4meter4 I am sorry, but the above is almost entirely wrong as a matter of policy and practice, and you should seriously consider stepping away from giving advice to other users. Contra your assertion WP:RCD makes no requirement for starting a talk page discussion when fixing a clearly incorrect edit, whether that edit was made due to an accident, out of ignorance, or in malice is unimportant. As just one example see [10] where not just me, but several users including several admins reverted the addition of obviously incorrect speedy tags. Was any talk page discussion started? No. Why? because it is not required, and if you are going to argue that all of us are wrong and the admins need to be desysopped, save it, not worth my time.
- Or what about this where I did exactly what I did here, down to leaving the warning template, it went to ANI, and the prompt consensus was that I was right, and again no one made a single edit to the talk page. Why? Because the edit was obviously wrong. Or how about leaving this message after a revert? Oh and that user ended up being blocked hmmm. Informational messages after reverting? not only standard but actually encouraged, and if you do not leave them you are arguably setting people up for failure. I do it all the time actually, and yet maybe not often enough.
- Do people make mistakes and need to be helped? Absolutely. That is when those messages are especially helpful, see when people are here in good faith and want to learn I get thanked for leaving them [11], funny how that works.
- Added point, per WP:BRD, even in the case where something is not an obvious mistake the person who gets reverted is supposed to start the discussion, hint it was not me. Ah but you still have not linked a single diff, maybe because none of them support your case? I mean I do not know, you tell me, but you have no excuse for not doing so now.
- So no, "warning tags", which are really just informational messages are not WP:UNCIVIL. If they were uncivil that would actually be a matter for their template talk pages to make the wording civil, or for TFD if there is no hope for them.
- WP:CAN applies to discussions involving content or conduct on all pages, which this one did, even if you have at length conceded the content point. Though I would like to see you argue with a straight face on ANI that "WP:CANVAS only applies to community discussions on community pages" so all posts to user talk pages are automatically exempt from it.
- Make you an offer though. Go to VPP, asking if the community shares your interpretation of policy that leaving Template:uw-ew on someone's page if you have reverted them is forbidden. Same for adding to WP:CIV explicitly that any message on a user talk page instead of an article talk page is inherently WP:UNCIVIL. If the consensus is that in you are correct I take the L admit you were right and walk away. But if the community disagrees, you stop giving advice until you are actually familiar with community practice, deal? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with you that a revert was warranted. The issue isn't your reversion but your failure to engage with BeLucky in a discussion at Talk:Glen T. Martin. A talk page discussion should have happened prior to giving a warning here per policy at Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors. As explained there, it is policy to address the issue first on the talk page and explain to the warring editor why the revert was necessary and give editors a chance to respond before escalating to a warning. If they ignore the talk page message and continue to edit war then give a warning and if it continues after that warning take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. That is the process. I further note, I am basically parroting back WP:AVOIDEDITWAR which is the recommended guideline, so I really think this is advice that has wide community support unlike what your last post suggests. As for canvassing policy... , This issue has come up previously at ANI and, if I understood the consensus correctly, canvasing only applies in contexts involving the consensus building process in community space and is not applicable to private conversations in user space. Nor is it applicable to a user trying to seek help/council when accused of misconduct.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- The canvassing very much depends. A neutral notification to an editor where you have no idea how that editor will edit is OK. A non-neutral notification, or one to an editor you expect support from is not. Thus if you had a history of backing me in content disputes in a topic area, and I left you a message that mentioned your input is desirable in a way such that a typical person could tell it was referring to a specific content dispute that would be canvassing. Likewise even if you were neutral and I left a slanted message, worse if both. The problem with WP:STEALTH is that the community does not have the opportunity to assess the message for appropriateness, which is why it is disfavored. Perhaps you were selected at random with a neutral pointer, but the community should have the opportunity to assess that for itself, and not just now, but also retrospectively in the future. If no good reason exists for the private message then the user who sent it should be advised to keep things on-wiki ion the future so as to avoid any doubt.
- Your first point remains doubly wrong. It is not required for a talk page discussion prior to leaving a Template:uw-ew, which is simply informational and useful reading for those unfamiliar with policy, and if it were you would have taken me up on my offer for a VPP clarification thread.
- But let's try to simplify, was this edit in violation of policy, yes or no will do, if you try to hedge in any way that is already admission that your claims above are incorrect. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to notify you given that you have a redliked talk page, but I am assuming that you are still watching this conversation. I decided that the best place to settle this is through a request for input at ANI. It's best to let more experienced editors than myself in conflicts like this to comment and tell us what is correct. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for clarity. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- You notify people with red linked pages the same way you do with blue linked ones. The only differrence is that the link says "create" instead of "edit", but otherwise it works more or less the same. Nothing to worry about.
- I think VPP is better for asking for clarification on policy meanings, that is if I remember correctly. Also I'm pretty confident its rude to link to a wall of text and ask for input. Next time we should try to workshop the clarification question together to get something concise and then post to VPP, but too late for that now. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was more concerned about creating a page for an IP user. I wasn't sure if it would reach you as IP addresses can change if you are using a dynamic system. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- User:4meter4 sorry I misunderstood. It does change sort of randomly, but I am usually pretty good about checking my own pages for the past week, which I was taught was good practice, but I guess not everyone does so I understand where you are coming from. I would still leave the message anyway if this sort of thing happens in the future, worse case scenario the IP switches at the exact wrong time, but my guess is 9 times out of 10 people will still see it.
- To avoid forking things best practice is to focus discussion at the new venue for now. As to the rest, see my comment there, if things don't move too quickly and you have the time I think we can workshop a summary we both agree on tomorrow so people don't have to wade through a wall of text, not sure which of us should host it, or if practice is to use the userspace of a neutral third party while it is still being drafted, so I will try to check that first. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:AC63:56C2:B69A:156D (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was more concerned about creating a page for an IP user. I wasn't sure if it would reach you as IP addresses can change if you are using a dynamic system. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure how to notify you given that you have a redliked talk page, but I am assuming that you are still watching this conversation. I decided that the best place to settle this is through a request for input at ANI. It's best to let more experienced editors than myself in conflicts like this to comment and tell us what is correct. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for clarity. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with you that a revert was warranted. The issue isn't your reversion but your failure to engage with BeLucky in a discussion at Talk:Glen T. Martin. A talk page discussion should have happened prior to giving a warning here per policy at Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors. As explained there, it is policy to address the issue first on the talk page and explain to the warring editor why the revert was necessary and give editors a chance to respond before escalating to a warning. If they ignore the talk page message and continue to edit war then give a warning and if it continues after that warning take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. That is the process. I further note, I am basically parroting back WP:AVOIDEDITWAR which is the recommended guideline, so I really think this is advice that has wide community support unlike what your last post suggests. As for canvassing policy... , This issue has come up previously at ANI and, if I understood the consensus correctly, canvasing only applies in contexts involving the consensus building process in community space and is not applicable to private conversations in user space. Nor is it applicable to a user trying to seek help/council when accused of misconduct.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sigh. I am now trying to be patient. The policy rule as articulated at WP:RCD is to start a talk page discussion. That is the very first step in any conflict dispute on wikipedia. The decision to not start a talk page discussion and go straight to a warning tag (particularly when you are an involved party in an edit war) is WP:UNCIVIL and acting in WP:BADFAITH. Per policy at WP:RCD you need to actually start a discussion on a talk page. An edit summary with linked policies in a revert is not a substitute for trying to engage with the person you are having a conflict with where they actually get a chance to respond and dialogue with you. The evidence here is a lack of evidence at Talk:Glen T. Martin where a conversation should have happened (or at least an attempt at one) before placing an edit war tag here. The decision to skip that mandatory step in conflict resolution and go straight to a warning is a form of hostile editing because it is a power move that shames the editor while unnecessarily escalating the conflict and sets the groundwork for further heightened conflict while removing the chance for an initial peaceful and shame free conversation. I have no intention of taking this to ANI, but if I see you doing this again to any other editor in any future conflict I will bring it there for a pattern of failing to follow protocol at RCD. You need to start with a talk page discussion before moving to a warning. With the exception of severe issues like vandalism, that is always standard practice and its policy. Lastly, WP:CANVAS only applies to community discussions on community pages. Your attempt to apply it to a discussion held in user space is entirely against policy and would not hold up anywhere. Users unequivocally have a right to seek council when dealing with a conflict brought to their personal talk page. I strongly suggest you strike out the accusation because it would not be received well if brought to ANI.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2023
[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)