Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.
Hi friend. I can see you have been busy. It may be a good idea to take a break from the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article for a couple of weeks. There are a lot of other articles which need the attention of a passionate and bold editor like yourself. The article regarding the the Capitol attacks is under a 1RR restriction and you have been reverting more than this limit with some of your edits. Also, it's a good idea to stay away from the WP:AN noticeboard. The only reason you should post anything to the AN/I is to stop bad faith editors from doing damage to the project, it's not the place to discuss or debate content disputes. You have the potential to become an excellent and valuable editor and a real asset to the Wikipedia project. Consider taking a break from 1RR articles for the time being. I would not like to see you blocked again or topic banned. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that all articles related to US politics are subject to this restriction. Perhaps you should add that template to this article. I have been treating it as 1RR in any event and as per WP:BRD all editors should avoid 1RR when possible. Thanks for the clarification. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see why pinged him now, Chrisahn. Holy split discussion. Let's leave Alalch Emis' talk page in peace, though. El_C00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Octoberwoodland, it's been exactly a year since I registered. I sometimes remember our collaborative interaction and come back to this message of yours. It was encouraging, and over time, I think it gave me what I needed to stabilize (to an extent🙂) my contributions to the project. I hope you're doing great in the new year. Best — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months. 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.
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."
Sorry, Alalch Emis, but it doesn't look you've lived up to your assurances. Note that this partial block is a bit of a boon. My first instinct was to go with a straight WP:AP2topic ban, but possibly you can still edit (hopefully, much, much less controversial!) American politics pages without further incident. But please note that further transgressions on that front are likely to be met with severity. Please do not remove this block notice, if you don't mind, so that if further problems occur, there's a visible reference point for other editors to note your quasi-probationary status. G'luck. El_C23:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't contend. Bombing was there for a month, and was being openly discussed and revised (in the body as well) on finer points: wording, not inclusion/exclusion, implying that multiple people, over time, agreed it should be listed in some form. Because of that, and since it involves a the question of "what is an integral part of the event" (with regard to the subject of the article as being defined by it's chosen name as well, so implications of renaming discussions exist too) and seeing how it's something closely related to the earlier RfC on terrorism, I thought an efficient way to finally get clarity on this point of content is an RfC. I started it after a sequence of reverts by a user who would not discuss it. Looking at it now, despite the snowclose, I don't see anything negative coming from that RfC. A related discussion was started, consensus is being formed on multiple important points of content. The infobox is attracting renewed scrutiny (as it should). It's just normal. The only thing that isn't normal is the hatted subdiscussion. I didn't think starting an RfC can create bad optics regarding my contributions. — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starting the RfC wasn't the problem. (Maybe it wasn't strictly necessary to start an RfC, but that's no big deal.) I think you should read again what many editors have been trying to tell you in the last five or ten days, here on your talk page, in the ANI discussions your started, and elsewhere. Many of your contributions have been useful, but some elements of your behavior have been disruptive, and so far you have shown no indication that you've understood what the problem is. — Chrisahn (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After being continuously hounded by you, in an apparent reaction to my opposition (former, this is in the past) to your subtle disruptive maneuver in the riot RM, I won't be showing any indication of positive receptiveness to your words, i.e. those words aimed at personally. For example you state now that the RfC is pretty run-of-the-mill, but at the same time that I'm at risk of owning the article by starting the RfC. I can't bow down do illogicalities. Let's change the subject. We can redirect this energy onto working on an article, for example. Nothing forces you to write on my talk page, but I am compelled to respond to posts that target me. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a strongly negative reaction to multiple Wikipedia editors -- far more than most other people have. You might want to think about why this is. I have not examined your interactions with Chrisahn and thus will not take sides, but in your interactions with me you reacted very negatively to my good-faith advice. I have been watching various editors get into various conflicts over the last fifteen years, and I wrote an essay that many experienced editors agree is helpful for editors in the middle of such conflicts. I urge you to reconsider your decision to reject my essay out of hand. Seriously, I really think it will help you. The essay is at WP:1AM. Could you please just look at it? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. After having read a part earlier, I've now read the whole of it. The obstacle for me is the seriousness and solemnity by which the "many" is addressed. It is homogeneized and normativised as a more powerful subject that is to be reckoned with. By reading your essay, the most likely immediate effect on the reader is: "hmmm I'm gonna make sure I'm a part of the many so I don't have to go through all this trouble (next time)". But the "the many" is a twisted meme. The first who calls upon the many is the vanguard that is followed by others who want a piece of the cake. They want to be the majority from the argument from majority. They want it not to be a mere fallacy but an argument of power. Power seduces; when it draws people in, they conform, submit, and stop generating original output, and start thinking how to promote the meme. "The many" is therefore typically the first to undermine conventions, it's a dark desire to reaffirm and constitute oneself as the "law". It's only when one challenges the many openly, the law (the conventions and the virtue in them) becomes visible and explicit. What should treated as solemn is process, not raw power. A majoritarian tendency is a natural side-effect of open-ended collaboration, but it should be undermined, ridiculed, and not canonized in essays. That's why I have a deep philosophical objection to the essay. What I see as fundamentally misplaced reverence in addressing the many (throughout the essay, implicitly and explicitly) is why I had called it what I called it, but there was no negative emotion behind it. I've read a few other texts in your userspace and I liked them a lot. I'm going to take a while to process everything and adjust. I really appreciate the good will in your approach. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch Emis, hmm, looks like I can't add anymore — apparently, WP:PB is capped at 6 (which is news to me, so I learned something new). Anyway, as mentioned above, I wasn't originally mindful of all the aforementioned sister pages. Otherwise, I'd have just gone with a WP:TBAN from the outset. Can you please just spare me the bother of amending the sanction again by just staying away from any and all of the sister pages, whatsoever, for the 3-month duration? That would be greatly appreciated. Regards, El_C15:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VQuakr, the block was for 3 months (it's in bold). This is Alalch Emis' talk page, so any decision regarding archiving (or lack thereof) is totally up to them. El_C17:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: I'm agnostic on the issue, i.e. maybe there's some good in not archiving the section. On your advice (if you believe that it would be of some service to other people coming to this talk page), I'll archive it; equally – you can. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of Historic Landmarks in Healdsburg, California
Is it Wikipedia policy that historic landmark buildings and districts in Healdsburg cannot be included on Wikipedia? There seem to be many international, federal, state, county and city designations and the listings for most do appear on a Wikipedia article. What makes Healdsburg worthy of being cut? Please explain.MikeVdP (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MikeVdP: Any subject has better coverage when it is done according to Wikipedia's established norms and best practices. According to these, pretty much all things Healdsburg should be covered in a single article. I really like the text of the decision, I could sign every word, so I have nothing better to add in particular. All people want is for Healdsburg to have the best coverage here that it can have. Rather than addressing me, you can nominate one of those superfluous articles on other locales, that you've noticed, for deletion. Spread the love :) — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: Hi! The nationalistic/expansionist element that's involved in this subject matter is when the corridor is made up to be a strip of sovereign Azerbaijani territory (which could be deduced from Aliyev's words), but when seen strictly in the words of Article 9, it's a corridor, a member of the genus of transport corridors. My edits haven't made the article more controversial than it's already been. I hope you're open to discussing this a little more. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't deduce / WP:OR, it does not say corridor or its location or even the type or number. Please abide WP rules or the community will oblige you to abide those rules. --Armatura (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When a reflection on "You're boring" and "Your words ring hollow" phrases violating WP:CIVILITY is shown, you may find people whom you address by such phrases could be open to discussing things a little more. However, you chose to undo the revert of another editor straight after being reverted, thus engaging in WP:EDITWAR instead of discussing on talk page, causing even more disruption. --Armatura (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now, @Armatura: tell me – comparing the current state of the article (ver) with the one that was reverted (ver), which portions of the reverted version specifically present elements of original research and advocacy that go beyond the current version? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Post-AfD intransigence -- I already drew attentiont to Laska666's conduct and they were given a final warning. Now I would ask them to stop on their talk page (by saying literally "please stop") and if they don't in a day or two, and make multiple disruptive/PoV-pushing edits, I'd ping the administrator who issued the warning and tell them that the problem has continued, that the actions feel retaliatory, and I'd provide diffs of offending edits. Sorry I haven't been doing more in the Nguyen article, I'm mostly outside this week and can't make larger edits. — Alalch Emis (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, Wikipedia is volunteer work so one shouldn't invest more time in it then they would want. I prefer to avoid administrators whenever possible, as the conditions of my unblock (for using an emoji in my signature which is acceptable for literally any other user) was that if any admin even finds me mildly irritating that I would be "community banned" so I avoid them whenever possible. My problem with the user is that they add so much good content at the same time while they are pushing for some weird POV, I wouldn't even know how to describe it other than Vietnam being made into "a typical South-East Asian country" (whatever that means) as other South-East Asian countries are usually called "Kingdoms" while Vietnam was called an "Empire", East Asian countries are typically organised by "Dynasty" so this user attempts to remove as much references to dynasties as possible. I wanted to avoid calling what they were doing as "hoaxes" but in the case like them tampering with "List of Vietnamese dynasties" they literally re-wrote a section to mislead readers which should be against the rules. By preference I would not like to see anyone blocked (well, except for people like Unserefahne who actually do deserve it) because I know what it's like and it's like living hell, but I would just want the user to stop spreading false information in order to spread "their preferred version of Vietnamese history". I really hope that they will realise the errors of their ways and know that Wikipedia is an educational platform and not ấn advocacy platform. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confused by your comment
Hello. In this [2] edit on Talk:Killing of David Amess you said "Support comments are entirely discountable", which implies "all support comments". In turn, you would say a CNN source saying "Assassinated" is entirely discountable. While I have mixed opinions about CNN, Wikipedia deems CNN as a fully reliable source. By that comment, I feel like I should start a discussion on the reliable source list about CNN maybe not being reliable for UK news...especially if the discussion is officially closed (I have asked for the SNOW close to be reopened.) I am not saying you are wrong or anything about you. I am more of wanting to clarify your comment and get maybe an affirm (100% what you mean) or a different wording to say what you mean, before I would start that CNN discussion. So would you be ok to clarify that comment more for me? Thanks! Elijahandskip (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: Hi! I'd like to preface my answer with a note that I respect your opinion, and I don't think your contribution to the discussion was unwanted. Labelling your and other "support" advocates' comments as "discountable" sounds a little self-important. I don't make such comments routinely (and I hope I wouldn't be making them in the future, unless perhaps in a closing capacity, when a call of this sort must be made), and I don't like seeing them in discussions when other editors make them. I was compelled to write that regardless because I was absolutely convinced the discussion was not going to be closed in any other way, and that, were it not closed, it would only have led to a general distraction from improving this very publicly visible article that is linked on the front page. The reason I was so convinced that a different outcome is impossible is because of the clear guidance contained in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). It says that in an absence of a common name, a descriptive is to be be used, and this descriptive name must not be murder (or it's analogue in this case, assassination) unless it's officially judged to be a murder. Assassination is patently not a common name for this event despite one or several sources using it. It should really be a preponderance of sources that call it assassination, and it it not so. Moreover, even if it had appeared that a rough or relative majority of sources have been calling it assassination it would have been too soon to speak of a common name – even then we would still not be basing our naming choice on a consideration of a common name, and it would have taken something like several days for the coverage to settle around a term, and not even multiple days had passed. Despite CNN being absolutely a reliable source for our purposes here (no need to question that in this context), we can't establish a common name based on what you're saying. Since we don't have a common name, we must use a descriptive name according to our conventions which in this case can't be murder/assassination because the perpetrator wasn't convicted. Kind regards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: We can jointly WP:REDACT our conversation on the article talk page by deleting both of our comments below the RM. This means that you can delete both if you agree. That's the best thing I can come up with ATM, aside from not doing anything about it (better than writing more things on this matter). If you have some other idea, please let me know. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New Wikipedia Guideline Proposed which you might be interested in
Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Wikipedia:Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help me with some pageview/ghit research?
I'm interested in the trends on Kevin McCarthy (California politician) and Kevin McCarthy (actor) as there's a RM ongoing. I don't know as much as you clearly do about how to setup the search. I know you'd make it look straightforward. I'd like to see a pageview comparison chart of both pages from page creation until the present, say 1 or 2 year increments and then the ghit comparison chart from page creation until the present day. I am specifically NOT asking you to participate in the RM. If however you were to produce the graphic comparison, it might help me illustrate the long-term notability issue. Might not. It would be relevant data anyway. No big deal if you choose not to help. Thanks for what you do. I have learned a bunch about functionality watching your excerpt solutions. BusterD (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: I thought about some type of chart or charts, but this is probably fine too, and it's much simpler: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=kevin%20mccarthy%20house,kevin%20mccarthy%20actor -- the actor trend is pretty motionless with a massive spike in 2010; the politician trend is more lively with multiple spikes (I chose 'kevin mccarthy house' as it seems to best captures the object of the search). When we compare these trends to kevin mccarthy en général, we see that the general trend in the past ten years roughly corresponds to the trend for the politician, and not for the actor (which is a given, as the actor is deceased). So the politician has been trending more for a while, but I don't think that this is of much use in the RM because it doesn't capture the amount of coverage and recognition the actor received during his lifetime. I wouldn't make distinctions based on country, but it's safe to say that outside of US the politician has not been trending in any significant way. Sorry for not replying sooner, I've been a bit under the weather and avoided screen time for the past week. Thanks for the words of encouragement! — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are feeling better. I have had to step back a bit this year myself for family reasons. Thank you for spending ANY time on this for me. I very much enjoy that we sometimes disagree but still trust each other as true wikipedians do. Your energy and initiative solutions have vastly improved the Capitol Attack page. Please feel invited to call on me if I can be helpful. BusterD (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Alalch Emis. I am not sure how often you look or edit things on the Portal:Current events, but I think it would be helpful to check it out when/before you create a new "current event" article. About an hour before you created 2021 Lagos high-rise collapse, an article Ikoyi building collapse had began and was listed on the portal. An editor later on deleted all the info from the earlier article and left a redirect to the article you started. Nothing wrong per say with all of this, just more of a weird situation since we now editing history plus a stray talk page that have content but no links to it. There is nothing wrong with what you did as I believe the article you started has a better name and the redirect solved the article issues, but maybe in the future, check the Portal out to see if a stub article already exists for that new current event. Have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: Thanks a lot! I was wondering about the same thing and was unsure about creating the article, under a feeling that it must have already been started -- and it had been! (I just didn't find it.) I will definitely check the portal out more in the future when starting such articles. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Argument than the Google Scholar and Google Trends based evidence, that Astana still is the more common Name used in English sources can be more relevant?
What if a consensus is not met, because there is a subject like this, are the arguments regarding the usage nothing Wirth, because some people just think differently.
Sorry, but I just dont get it!
there almost never can be a consensus, arguments are the things, that count, aren't they?
Nice job on a very strong and helpful page. I had given credit to your partner but didn't realize how heavily you were involved as well. Great stuff. We wikipedians are suckers for stuff about ourselves. BusterD (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey if you’re gonna make Wiki post how about you dumb down the overwhelming bias and actually inform people. Nazis and 3% groups are not the same, you are the reason this country is so divided politically. Thank you and get your stuff together❄️ 2603:800C:3600:5788:C08A:1C32:BFA4:31F1 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! No single version can appease everyone's diverse viewpoints, and the generic explanation for this is "bias", i.e. "If this doesn't read the way I think it should, it must be that the people who wrote it are biased." On Wikipedia we're used to looking past this boilerplate critique to really try and see if there's room for improvement, according to our standards of verifiability, neutrality, style etc. So I went and looked. The changes you refer to do not, and they certainly weren't intended to, make it look like neo-Nazis and Three Percenters are the same. If Three Percenters didn't want to be at the same event with some neo-Nazis, they shouldn't have come to the insurrection. Now they are mentioned (in the same paragraph, along with many other groups) as both being at the event, each in their own capacity, which plainly does not imply that they are one and the same. Sincerely — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly flattered
...but I don't quite understand why I was pinged to the Capitol attack discussion. Do I have some special knowledge that temporarily slipped my mind? Or is it just that my participation is an ornament to any thread? EEng 06:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: Sorry, I thought the connection would be obvious. I pinged you as the main author of POSA to comment on the situation. Thought you might like seeing the examples, which are actual revisions under discussion (now RfC). — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. So, OK, for long threads it's fairly common to add a new section, typically (but not always) named "arbitrary break". It's quite common at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where there's almost always a couple in play at any time. Also at say Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) where the top one has several, the first one indeed named "break". At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style the wheelchair thread has several, one named "not-so-arbitrary break". AfDs are usually not long enough to need that, but this one maybe is. And I've seen it before.
One reason is, if there's a table of contents (not in play here, but maybe one should be added) it allows navigating down to the bottom of a long thread. Another is to signal a shift to a different point than the text immediately above. This allows editors to easily post to both parts of the thread. Also, there's no rule against I don't think, as well as its being common practice.
Also, it's not common to edit other editors's comments, in fact it's usually not looked upon with favor. And you took out a paragraph. If it'd been a personal attack or something, then maybe. But it wasn't. It was mostly just a heads-up that I was going to do a dive into the 'pedia and get some possibly-useful data. Part was a little bit snarky, but not toward any person. Wikipedia:TPO has some suggestions on that. Usual practice if its not an emergency is to contact the editor on her talk page and request her to redact it.
Also, it's important to have accurate edit summaries. Yours was "Stop decimating the customary AfD formatting" which I suppose was about my adding a subsection, but the main part of the edit was deleting a chunk of text. A blank edit summary is allowed, but a misleading one isn't.
@Herostratus: I'm sorry that you're concerned about a part of your comment being deleted—it wasn't. All the paragraphs are there, take another look. I stand by my edit which was done according to WP:AFDFORMAT, WP:TPO, WP:REFACTOR and with mind to WP:NOTARBITRARY. Arbitrary break is not meant to be your private section, or a way to highlight your comment, especially not in an AfD. Arbitrary break looks like this:
Well, "I accept your apology" I hope? Because you are basically correct on all matters and I apologize. I was hasty and didn't take the time to see that you moved my comment (which is fine) rather than deleting it. On the other matter, I believe the thread was in correct chronological order but here the editor updated the time stamp on a post. Bu it may not have been in correct logical order, so fine, I understand what you did now, and it's not a problem, it's fine, and sorry for taking your time. Herostratus (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
In regards to this, while I agree it may be trimmed down to make it more concise, my reasoning was that if we are going to report Tombs' opinion, we should also report the finding from the AfD's closure which contradicted it; a possible solution is to further trim it down and remove Tombs' opinion, and keep it but add the relevant quotes from the AfD's quotes in a footnote, or paraphrase both quotes in a very concise way that I was not able to do. Thanks in advance. Davide King (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davide King: Hi, and sorry for the delayed reply! I understand your reasoning perfectly. Actually I agree with your reasoning (from a broader perspective): In all regards, the aim of your edit was was justified and transparently well-meaning. But there's a big, kind of formal, and a bit boring BUT – as follows: there is both a broader, and more specifically an explicit local consensus not to use project pages as sources in that article. This view has roots that go years back, saying that Wikipedia must not do Wikipedia:Navel-gazing. The sentence that uses the AfD as the source is teetering at the brink of this predominanltly accepted view. Actually it could be removed altogether citing these consesuses. There had been a very major effort on the part of preceding editors not to exacerbate this issue, so as to find the most relevant independent sources dealing with the subject matter. People went through actual books and scholarly articles (that they very likely wouldn't have read otherwise), simply in order to make this article an acceptable reality. This article was intended to be almost pristine in this regard from the beginning (compared to other, older, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia articles, that actually have a dubious level of acceptability according to this standard). So to include a very long quote of an internal, project-space, discussion is something that isn't compatible with the general idea. This is the reason for my partial reverts. Regardless, I'm not a fundamentalist in this sense, and I think that the current state is an adequate compromise. Whatever ideas of further improvement you might have, I encourage you to try them out. Regards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the main issue was the link to Wikipedia projects, which I agree with; indeed, there has been no reliable source reporting on the closure, therefore that part should be removed too. My main issue was that the claim of bias and whitewashing were blown out of proportion, if not outright false, as has been noted in the closure, which pointed out the canvassing (it started on 18 November, while The Telegraph reported it on 27 November). At this point, I think it is undue because the only reliable source to have reported it was The Telegraph, and it was then used as basis not from other reliable sources but from one-sided (right-wing) and unreliable/fringe sources (see the press coverage at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes). From what I have seen, most of the content we currently cite is backed by more than a single reliable source, and I think The Telegraph source is more appropriate to express Cliff May's and Robert Tombs's opinions at their own articles rather than Criticism of Wikipedia or other similar page it has been added. Even for Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, those attracting public attention, they all have at least two reliable sources in support (e.g. the Los Angeles Times and The Telegraph for Mzoli's), while in this case we have only one. Of course, as I participated in that AfD, I am not going to remove anything; however, is it correct that having a single reliable source (it is also not one of the least biased, considering the controversial nature of the topic) does not make it due, and that having unreliable and fringe sources also reporting it does not make it due or notable precisely because they are unreliable? Davide King (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pings
FWIW I don’t think the pings are a problem. The canvassing tag is pretty harmless. This is going to be closed by somebody very experienced who will not be swayed. JehochmanTalk18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has caused a lot of work for a lot of other editors. They’ve bludgeoned multiple talk pages. At
Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack, they have made 25% of the edits, more than the next two contributors put together, which is a pretty impressive accomplishment for someone who was blocked from that talk from February through May of 2021. Their most recent bludgeoning of a talk page, still ongoing, is at Talk:XRV, where they also have 25% of edits, and decided to list a contentious XRV discussion at ANI, which I asked them not to do again, a request they immediately removed unreplied, and when another editor restored to add a comment, defended as helpful. They also have 25% of edits at XRV itself. One in four edits, by an editor who has not been directly or indirectly involved in a single case. For me this is almost the definition of unhelpful clerking at a noticeboard.
The user has a history of problematic behavior dating to their first edits. Previous ANI and the one before that. I have probably two dozen diffs of them removing from their user talk, mostly without replying, various posts offering advice, questions, warnings and complaints from various well-intentioned experienced editors trying to reach out to help them or let them know they’re causing other editors extra work, asking them to stop clerking discussions or bludgeoning or edit-warring, going back to January of 2021 if anyone wants to see those, but they're easily found in this page history; just look for the user's removals of sections. Every one I checked was expressing some sort of concern, and in almost every case was not replied to before deleting.
I believe this editor needs to be indeffed until they show they understand why their behavior is problematic and agree to:
Stop bludgeoning/clerking discussions
Start responding collegially to questions, complaints, warnings, and advice on their user talk
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, I have unblocked your account. You are indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed. Izno (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've reblocked this account; the user had locked themself out before appealing. Page watchers may watch the Twsabin account's page for future activity. Izno (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch Emis unblocked
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Alalch Emis (talk·contribs) is unblocked. Alalch Emis is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed. Izno (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
