User talk:Cleisthenes2

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Cleisthenes2! I am Erik the Red 2 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athenian democracy

I saw you went ahead with the edits to this article which you described and raised on the talk page first. Great stuff. Only one thing: could you add the sources you've mentioned on the talk page to the article itself as references using the <ref> tag? That way the edits are then verifiable. If you need any help with citing sources on Wikipedia then you might find WP:CITE to be of use. Coldmachine^Talk 06:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Zopyron

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Zopyron requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 02:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Claudia Rapp

The article Claudia Rapp has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEASEL

Please stop inserting WP:WEASEL/WP:W2W/WP:ALLEGED in articles like on Masculinity and Toxic masculinity. Using terms like "alleged" is a rather clear attempt to discredit and cast doubt into the mind of the reader. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to insert this language when there's no substantive disagreement among sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Toxic masculinity. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electroconvulsive therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Family Life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've substituted a specific link to the film now. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at WP:BLPN

Hi Cleisthenese, regarding this edit of yours at WP:BLPN, which has been reverted and which you restored, please note that you have removed a lot of content from the noticeboard. Would you please have a look and restore what was removed along with including the reply you were making? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just addressed it here, EdChem. As Fæ noted in their edit (and as I independently did in the edit summary of the first diff), it appears that Cleisthenes2 was trying to reply to a now-archived section. It's still unclear to me whether this was a copy-and-paste attempt or just replying to an old revision, but regardless, I think it's all fixed now.

Cleisthenes2, if you want to resume an archived discussion, please do so by either starting a new section mentioning it and proceeding from there, perhaps notifying the previous participants with a template like {{u}} (e.g., {{u|Cleisthenes2}} pings you, like I used above); or otherwise bring it up on one of their talk pages or even here on your own. Whatever you did this time, it had a lot of collatoral damage. I think it's all fixed now, and you can bring up the discussion to Fæ on their talk page if you want to continue it, but hopefully now you understand why others were reverting you. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is the reply you posted, in case you want to still use it to continue the discussion somewhere (probably here or on Fæ's talk page):

Reply text

Thanks Fæ. That Young has edited the article about him in the past isn't relevant. I'm the one who has been questioning the neutrality of the sentence in question, and I don't know him.

"The sky is blue" is clearly a less controversial statement than "those Toby Young tweets were misogynistic."

"The tweets are seen to be offensive by the vast majority of people that read them." Do you have any evidence that would establish this, such as a (non-self-selected) survey of viewers of those tweets?

In any case, I'm not sure whether a majority of people would find the tweets offensive is even relevant here. That's because it would be quite easy to record the basic facts (that Young was fired after some past tweets were uncovered) without taking any position on whether they were offensive or not.

I am going to have another go at re-writing the sentence in a way that doesn't violate our duty to political neutrality. You're welcome to let me know how you think I've done.

Cleisthenes2

I hope that helps. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry - for some reason I didn't see the replies to me and thought that someone had removed what Fae and I had said. Thanks for fixing it. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are familiar with what I am about to explain, but I might as well explain anyway just in case. If you already are, then I apologize.

Since it seems you aren't as active as other users are (and with good reason, it seems, being a professional classicist in some of my favorite subjects!), you may participate in discussions which are archived by the time you return to them. This is especially true on highly trafficked pages, such as noticeboards and the talk pages of policies and guidelines. I doubt anyone would simply remove discussions in such areas, since doing so obfuscates the record and can be considered disruptive. The only times I think that might ever permissibly occur would be during suppression and revision deletion, but you would have to publish something very sensitive (like private information about someone) or obscene (like death threats or illegal content) for that to occur. Even then, someone would almost certainly alert you here at the very least.

If you ever find yourself in a situation like this again, consider searching first the archives on the page if there is one available, which should be located in a conspicuous box near the top of the page. Using your own username as a keyword may be enough. You may find the discussion there. If not, but you still have a link to an old revision diff or permanent link pointing to the old discussion, you can bring it up in a new section on the current page with that old revision linked to ask what happened. There are tools for locating specific revisions (like WikiBlame) and jumping to a part of the revision history of a page to see what might have occurred (like restricting the revision history to a month and year on the history page), but sometimes the best help one can get is by just asking.

Regardless, thank you for your contributions! Feel free to notify me any time if you want assistance, whether here or on my talk page. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nøkkenbuer, that's very helpful. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Young

Hi, do you have any personal or professional connection with Toby Young that should be declared at this point, per COIN? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I presume there can be no possible issues that could be later claimed to be outing, if anyone researches past events in Toby Young's career, such as through Sherborne School. Keep in mind that going to noticeboards like ANI can lead to more than normal levels of scrutiny if edits look like lobbying or have potential for COI, and being on somebody's personal network may be sensible to discuss even if not an obvious COI. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fæ - it's good of you to be concerned about potential conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. In this case, though, there are none. I've never met Young nor am I in any of the same networks, professional or otherwise. (As it happens, I haven't lived in the UK for over a decade now.) I'm not lobbying for him nor for any cause he espouses. I'm only interested in the language in this piece because I'm keen to keep Wikipedia a politically neutral and respected source. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, regardless of location, editing articles while logged out could be seen as deliberately misleading if you are editing or commenting on the same articles while logged in. If that has happened by mistake, again it would be sensible openly to ask for that to be reviewed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take note of that. I sometimes forget to log in before making edits, but I never do it deliberately in order to disguise myself. I'll try to take extra care to always log in in the future. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just looked back at the history of the Young article; if you thought 82.35.253.166 was me, it's not. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Toby Young shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity: I just posted a request for mediation here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_mediation_in_a_dispute_over_the_article_on_Toby_Young As you'll see there, my actions were based on a clear majority in favour of conforming to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. My recent revert was simply to resist continued changes back to language that has been supported by only one user. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: Cleisthenes2 appears incapable of recognizing that both reliable sources and community consensus are against it, and they have picked up where they left off in defiance of your above warning. As they are complaining at the lack of admin action, would you examine the continued revert warring and ensure this disruption will stop?

Refs:

I would be prepared to run a full one month RFC, but with the reliable sources being entirely unambiguous and overwhelmingly use these words, this seems a faux "dispute" which does not seem worth the volunteer burden of that process; at this point it would appear to be forum shopping which ignored existing, repeated, consensus.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cleisthenes2. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cleisthenes2. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Young article with respect to 'mysogynistic and homophobic'

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Fæ (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for persistent edit warring on Toby Young, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from Toby Young.

You have been sanctioned See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cleisthenes2 and Toby Young - topic_ban

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AE appeal request

I have removed your request at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, but this is not a denial of your appeal. Rather, the appeal was malformed. Please see the instructions at the top of the page for using the correct template to file your appeal, and feel free to repost it in that way. This is not just to be bureaucratic; we need all of that information it will have you provide to evaluate your request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I will try to fill in the form. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PC report

Per recent revert by another eeitor. Same concerns as mine. Rather than inserting as a separate claim, look at the source and see if it is relevant to the second sentence of the lede as further evidence of the generally negative way that PC is viewed. Then try the talk page and see if you can gain consensus regarding the notability and significance of the study to perhaps have it as a standalone entry or to support other content. Koncorde (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will post something on the talk page when I get some time. Are you saying that it would be more appropriate just as a reference after the second sentence? That would seem acceptable to me. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your AE appeal

I have fixed the template so that it displays properly. Please note that you are required to inform the admin (User:Galobtter) who applied the sanction. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that meant the person who got me banned (Fae). I guess Galobtter is now aware of my appeal, so thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours from. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I note you have an AE appeal open. You should be able to participate in that, so if you would like to place any additional statements or responses there, you may put them on this talk page and request that they be copied there for you. However, until and unless the appeal succeeds, you remain subject to the topic ban and will be blocked for violating it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade. I was just about to correct the English in the entry on Zapatero, and I noticed I'd been banned for a few hours. I have to say I'm a bit confused as to why. I know I'm banned from editing the entry on Toby Young, but I haven't done that for ages. Unless you get banned for making a comment on the talk page for topics you're banned from, which I wasn't aware of and would seem a bit odd, since my comment doesn't affect what shows up on the public page on that topic. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the page on what a topic ban is, which was also linked when the sanction was imposed. When topic banned, you may not edit in regards to the topic, including to discuss it, anywhere on Wikipedia, with only a few exceptions (such as in the context of an appeal). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, fair enough. I didn't realize that. If you could undo the block now so I could make that correction to the Zapatero article, that would be grand. Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow or later on. Cheers, Cleisthenes2 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, as you did in fact violate the ban, and you were advised of what it would mean. You can make your edits once the block expires. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Done those now. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your AE appeal

Hi, Cleisthenes2. I have put a question to you in my comment in the admin section, namely "Would you like to have a shot at explaining how it computes for you, Cleisthenes2?" (I guess you need to read my whole post for context.) I know you're blocked and can't reply on the AE page, but if you'd like to post a reply here, below, I or somebody else will move it over for you, as Seraphimblade says above. Of course it's up to you if you wish to reply or not — I didn't come here to nag you about it, but just to point out that it's a real question (as opposed to rhetorical). Bishonen | talk 12:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen. Thanks for this; I'm glad to see the reasonable tone you've taken in this message and happy that you seem genuinely open to considering my answer to your question. You ask how it computes that I have made several edits on one article, but claim that my purpose is to defend NPOV. I think that pattern is pretty easy to produce if (as is the way I see this) you make a sincere effort to reach compromise language on an important issue, supported by many other editors, and find your every effort to find middle ground abruptly rejected and reverted. The way I see it, I was just trying to stand my ground (and abide by norms like NPOV, building consensus, civility, etc.), and not cede that ground to (and have those norms subverted by) a couple of editors who seemed to have an extreme antipathy for the subject, an inability to discuss the topic in an objective way, and no compunction about using force rather than engaging in good-faith discussion. (In Fae's case, this tendency is extensively documented). I don't edit all that much on Wikipedia by some standards (though I have a bit over the years), so obviously there won't be that many other cases where I've stood up for NPOV just as a statistical matter, though there are a few (and not always from one side politically: see e.g. my concern about neutrality on the talk page of the entry on Salazar). The reason I haven't spent more time in the past few months editing other articles (though I have a bit: see my contributions file for new sections on ancient Greek democracies and ancient historians) is because I've been bogged down trying not to be bullied away from what I see as a perfectly reasonable attempt to engage with other good-faith Wikipedians on a lede that many others see as violating NPOV (see the relatively recent edits by Collect and the related discussion on the Toby Young talk page). Behind this, there's also a very important principle that needs defending: that a small minority of especially energetic and unscrupulous editors shouldn't be able to derail a constructive discussion by abusing editorial power, making irrelevant comments, and engaging in speculation about other editors' motive. So, that's why I've often come back to the Toby Young piece. If Fae and Black Kite had been open to reasonable compromise and hadn't resorted to constant reverts, snide comments, and edit-warring, I wouldn't have had to do this, and you would have had more new sections on ancient Greek democracy. Anyway, thanks for seeming genuinely open to an answer to your question. Best, Cleisthenes2 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for offering to copy this to the other page. I'd like that, actually. And I'd be grateful if you could do that also when I answer the other comments on that page. (I can't do this now for work reasons, but I'll get to it at some point; if that bit of the page could stick around for a few weeks, that would be great - I often come back to a discussion on here only to find it's disappeared! Thanks a lot, Cleisthenes2 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it over, and hopefully several people are watching this page, because I won't necessarily be around to do it next time. You want your AE appeal to stick around for a few weeks, till you have time to reply? I'm afraid that's unlikely. "A few weeks" is a long time in "Wikipedia time", and, after all, it was you yourself who determined the time of the appeal. But I'll add a note that you would like it to, and see what people say. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Your appeal has been declined, as there was consensus to do so and no appetite to agree to the delay you requested, but you may appeal again when you next have time if you wish. However, based on the comments received it seems unlikely that any future appeal will be successful without you having demonstrated you can edit productively and collaboratively in other topic areas. Doing so will require that you refrain from the personal attacks on other editors. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Thryduulf. Can you please restore the content of the arbitration dispute so I can now respond to Fae's attacks on me? The ability to respond to personal smears is an important principle of natural justice. Also, I'd ask you to provide evidence for the idea that I haven't edited productively or collaboratively in the past, in any of the hundreds of articles I've worked on over the past ten years. In the absence of good evidence I'll be expecting you to make a public apology. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been removed - just click the "show" link at the right hand side of the collapse box to see the whole appeal. Regarding your other points, the consensus of the uninvolved administrators was that there was insufficient evidence presented of collaborative editing in topics unrelated to Toby Young since your topic ban was placed. This is not a comment on you personally. The appeal is closed and will not be reopened. If you wish to discuss anything with Fae then you will need to so on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Thryduulf, but I don't understand why I need to present evidence of collaborative editing. That would seem to suggest that there was a presumption that I was being disruptive from the get go (and thus needed to redeem myself). But there's no evidence for me being disruptive; all there is evidence of is that I was engaged in an altercation with a user with a long record of disruption and abuse (leading eventually to a ban). If you would like to have another go at hearing my appeal fairly I'd be very open to that. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, your appeal will not be reopened, but you may make another one whenever you wish. The consensus of uninvolved administrators was that your contributions to the Toby Young article were a net negative so it is unlikely that you will be allowed back on that article unless you can demonstrate that you can edit constructively and collaboratively. You can do this by editing literally any other topic on the encyclopaedia - there is no shortage of topics to choose from. As for why you need to present this evidence, that's because we want to be certain that the problems that occurred previously will not occur again, regardless of why they happened in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Thryduulf. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but you haven't addressed this point (which I'm copying and pasting from my comment above): 'I don't understand why I need to present evidence of collaborative editing. That would seem to suggest that there was a presumption that I was being disruptive from the get go (and thus needed to redeem myself). But there's no evidence for me being disruptive; all there is evidence of is that I was engaged in an altercation with a user with a long record of disruption and abuse (leading eventually to a ban).' The fact that I can edit other articles is irrelevant to my claim that I have been unjustly blocked from the article on Young. If you would like to have another go at hearing my appeal fairly I'd be very open to that. In the meantime, is there a process for making a complaint about a disruptive and abusive editor? Many thanks, Cleisthenes2 (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of uninvolved administrators was that you were being disruptive - regardless of why you acted the way you did, your actions were not evidence of collaborative editing. When someone has shown that they cannot edit collaboratively to the extent that a topic ban is imposed, there is almost no chance that that topic ban will be lifted until they have demonstrated collaborative editing elsewhere. There is no possibility of your appeal being reconsidered - it literally will never happen, no matter how many times you ask or what reasons you give for doing so. You are free to make a new appeal at any time though. As for other editors, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow whatever is appropriate for the given situation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness article

Hello Cleisthenes2 - I just read the debate you've been having with a couple of other editors at Talk:Political correctness#Study on PC. I mostly agree with you. Perhaps we could write a proposed edit to the lede (and other sections, if appropriate) and then try to reach a consensus with other editors. Let me know if you would like to do that. All the best - - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD. Maybe it would be good for you to start by making your views known in that discussion. As I've said, I'm perfectly happy to consider different alternatives. In terms of editing, maybe it would be best to start by adding the new section I've suggested on studies on perceptions of PC, and citing the More in Common survey there. I don't see what objection there could be to that. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Free Speech Union - Logo - Te Reo- RGB - Horizontal Positive - 400px.png

Thanks for uploading File:Free Speech Union - Logo - Te Reo- RGB - Horizontal Positive - 400px.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summer

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

You are strongly encouraged (but not required) to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Nauseous Man (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)"}}[reply]

Nomination of Antigone (journal) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antigone (journal) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antigone (journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]