User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2023/October

Battle of Romny

Why did you decide to close the AFD here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Romny with merge to Northeastern Ukraine campaign? The current discussion was 2-2 for the merge targets, it did not have consensus for that article. - Indefensible (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The merge target is more a question for our normal editorial processes than AfD. The overall consensus to merge was strong -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you consider the merge target article to be decided then or still TBD needing further discussion on talk pages? The way you closed makes it seem like the outcome has already been decided. I disagree that was the best outcome though, even if merge was the consensus. - Indefensible (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Since there was even disagreement it is definitely open; however, I think you could target it wherever you would like and receive minimal push back based on the low number of opinions -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I just want to make sure that no one is going to come after me for that or use your AFD close in any downstream arguments. Thanks. - Indefensible (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese in Vatican City

Hi, I'll can try to rework or merge Portuguese in Vatican City as discussed at the AfD, if you can restore it to my userspace. Thanks! —siroχo 00:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Siroxo it is here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

An enquiry

Hello, I’m a new editor and I would like to know what to do if vandalism occurs, especially if it’s from supporters of a terrorist organisation. Wikipedia is quite confusing in that concept. Thanks. VirtualVagabond (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how terrorism is related to vandalism -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe you misinterpreted my words, nevermind. VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Busy

-- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It continues. After trips to Amsterdam and Paris, I might have come down with something between a bad cold, at best, and whooping cough, at worst. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am back to full activity. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Kars

You don't know the subject. This is not a situation related to the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict. This city is in Turkey. It has nothing to do with war or conflict. Can you tell me the connection of this article with the Azerbaijan-Armenia war? Additionally, there is a "Three-revert rule" rule violation, are you ignoring it?You are not aware of what you are doing. You are associating a city that has nothing to do with the war with the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict. It's like saying London, which has no connection to the war during the France-Germany war. It's like trying to claim that London is related to the war and preventing any changes. 31.223.57.68 (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Your edits clearly fall within "ethnic relations [...] involving Armenia". -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Kars city is a Turkish city with no direct connection to the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict. Therefore, there is no necessity or rationale for protecting the Wikipedia page of Kars as a result of the conflict, and it should be subject to editing just like many other cities in Turkey. Editing the Wikipedia page for Kars should be solely for the purpose of updating or correcting relevant information and sources about the city itself, as it has no relevance to the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict. It is important to note that the continuous use of this decision to attempt to prevent edits is a clear misuse of the protection, indicating an abuse of the protection status for the Wikipedia page. As a result, the editing of Kars' Wikipedia page should not affect the editing status of pages for other cities. 151.135.108.158 (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocks of Dough4872 and LilianaUwU

Hello, I am retired from English Wikipedia nowadays so I would like to make this quick. However, there are serious questions raised by your blocks that I would request you answer per WP:ADMINACCT:

1. Were these CheckUser blocks or ArbCom blocks? If these were CheckUser blocks, what CheckUser evidence could be used to prove that canvassing took place?
2. In light of comments such as those at [1] and [2] and [3], and given that the AFDs in question relate to sourcing of road articles, I am concerned that these blocks could be seen as INVOLVED. What is your response to these concerns?

Looking forward to your prompt reply. Rschen7754 00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

CUs are empowered by the community to block based on off-wiki evidence outside of traditional information from CU/OS. I was using this authority. I will also share the evidence with with checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org in addition to arbcom to increase the pool of people who can review the block.

I think you are stretching involved past is breaking point. I have thoughts on the FAC process, especially what counts under 1c, clause 2 as someone who has done hundreds of source reviews. I have no opinion on the underlying deletion discussion or on GEOROADS. The evidence I received from an anonymous community member was extremely clear-cut with one of the two people I blocked directly admitting that they are being canvased to the discussion by the other. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

So to clarify, the determination that this was canvassing was made by yourself solely and not by your peers?

Reading through the policy [4] as appropriate gets linked to [5], which says that Highly sensitive and private information (which I assume it must be, because canvassing is not Off-wiki evidence of sockpuppetry, undeclared paid editing, or other spam concerns nor is it Editors who should be oversight blocked) says that this must go to ArbCom and does not get handled by CU/OS. So again, I fail to see why CU is given power over this, and this is not an appropriate use of a CheckUser block, a block that is not appealable to other administrators or even other functionaries (say, OS).

Can you verify that the evidence was obtained in a lawful, compliant, and ethical manner, without breaking any laws regarding private conversations, Terms of Service or Privacy Policy, and without revealing the real-life identities of current and former Wikipedia editors? --Rschen7754 08:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I consulted with two other functionaries before I made my blocks and they passed informal peer review. One suggested that these are CU not CU/OS blocks, so that is how they got tagged. I have no problem with sharing the evidence with any other functionary in good standing and for them to review the blocks. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You did not directly answer my last question, so I will cut to the chase. Is it ethical for a sitting Arbitration clerk to enter a private Discord server that has never been affiliated with any Wikimedia project, break the rules of the server as well as the Discord TOS [6], and distribute either screenshots or entire transcripts? And for the same editor to threaten to post the information (either verbatim or paraphrased) to YouTube? And, for English Wikipedia functionaries to pass around the acquired information on mailing lists with dozens of editors like candy? (which may include real-life identities of Wikipedia editors - you have not clarified on this point)

For an organization that is supposed to represent privacy, this is a bad look. Rschen7754 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rschen7754, you are striding close to a block for legal threats and a separate block for harassment for pursuing this line of questioning. If you have further concerns with any of these actions, please feel free to contact the Arbitration Committee. Izno (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I think this conversation is enough for people to make their own judgments. --Rschen7754 18:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it ethical for people to pursue potential Discord policy violations through Discord processes and for people to pursue potential Wikipedia policy violations through Wikipedia processes. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Motion

October songs

my story today

Thank you for your initiative on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, specifically regarding infoboxes2. I didn't want to comment but left a comment mentioning distinct discussion. I have the feeling that some responses are more governed by rumors and memories than looking at facts. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome, Gerda Arendt. Something that is important to me is making sure that our long-lasting remedies are fit for the current moment instead of yesteryear. I hope to return to content editing after the current case is over. Lion Attacking a Dromedary has been the focus of an issue of a major museum studies journal and I think it could be enough to get it to FA status. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought of Brian Bouldton today, and his ways to compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)