| Revision as of 20:10, 3 August 2016 editמלא כל הארץ כבודי (talk | contribs)48 edits →Kamil Husayn Effendi: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:28, 3 August 2016 edit undoSfarney (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,974 edits →Sfarney Amendment request: Scientology: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
| A couple of hours ago you erased that article which i've translated from hebrew, your reasoning was that it was poor machine-translation. That's wrong. It may be a low quality article, but it was not machine-translated. --] (]) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC) | A couple of hours ago you erased that article which i've translated from hebrew, your reasoning was that it was poor machine-translation. That's wrong. It may be a low quality article, but it was not machine-translated. --] (]) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == Sfarney Amendment request: Scientology == | |||
| You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> ] ] 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:28, 3 August 2016
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8 as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
FOREVER
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
Status: Busy. 
|
| “ | In light of the following considerations:
|
” |
Competency
Why should the ARCA discussion about this be taken into account when deciding on sentencing length when I was not made aware of it until now? Ranze (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because ARCA clarified the Arbcom ruling you are subject to. From modern times to ancient tradition, most systems of governance have held that ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. The Wordsmith 08:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
From what I looked into though, the ARCA case had multiple admins there voicing that topic bans could be localized to portions of articles and didn't apply to an entire article just because the topic came up in some portents of it.
Anyway with special:diff/729781495 with the original being months expired, if your advice is accepted would that mean I'm now utterly free to edit GG things? Even if that were the case it'd feel like walking on egg-shells. I think I would want to first discuss the validity of the material that initiated all this (since I don't think it's a BLP violation) but I would be uncertain where I would be allowed to discuss it without fear of this recurring, since talk pages are included.
Is there a place other than the talk page where I can safely discuss this without fear of reprisal? Like somewhere on policy or project? Basically the whole 'Star Wars' career statements. Ranze (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- If I were you, I would wait until the AE request was closed with a definite result before editing in that area. However, if the result is that the ban is seen to have expired, and you are not under any other sanctions, then you would be free to edit in any topic area subject to the same restrictions as any other editor. Of course, if you were to abuse this privilege then the prior ban would be noted and it would likely result in an indefinite topic ban. I'm confused by what you mean when you say "where I would be allowed to discuss it without fear of this recurring". Do you have something to say that would potentially be a BLP violation? Also note that there has been a change in the admins enforcing in this area, so degrees of leniency may have changed as well. The Wordsmith 13:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
TripWire ARE
Dear Wordsmith, I suppose you have noticed that TripWire's response in the ARE case is way over the word limit. Cutting him some minor slack is fine by me. But I find it rather distasteful that he is using the leeway to make accusations against me and deflect attention from himself. (I have advised him numerous times to take it to WP:ANI if he had a case, and RegentsPark did as well, e.g., here. He never did.) I hope you will be stricter with the word limits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Wordsmith, the ARE has been archived without any feedback from the admins. Would you like to reinstate and do something to get the attention of admins? Or should I assume that it has been closed without any action? I am afraid the latter is likely to increase tensions within the India-Pakistan space. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: I've rescued it from the archive and commented on it. The bot made a mistake in archiving it before it had been closed. The Wordsmith 14:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sack of Rome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
ARCA re Rape Cases
So, despite the fact that the affected editor does not currently have a topic ban, I'd like to have the scope of the GamerGate topic ban clarified around People v. Turner and other rape cases. You suggested ARCA as the forum for this, but I wasn't sure if you were going to go forward with raising the issue there.
Without rehearsing my whole argument, I'm concerned both about controversial cases of sexual assault, and with patterns of editing designed to describe rape cases in ways that (imho) exemplify victim blaming (generally a BLPCRIME issue), disrespect anonymity (BLPPRIVACY) and attempt to re-investigate concluded cases (OR). This editing need not be in the part of the article that is "about gender" (if one thinks rape is not about gender) or "about controversy." I think these issues fall under "gender-related controversy, broadly construed," but then again I never imagined administrators would say that they didn't at AE, so what do I know?
In any case, I've never interacted with arbitration at this level before, but I will go forward with making a request if you're not going to.--Carwil (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed here, Carwil, where the consensus was that it 'obviously' fell under the topic ban. If you feel it's necessary, it's fine to start another discussion about it- it may nip the consternation by obtuse editors in the bud. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's necessary, especially given that Wordsmith voiced an opinion that differs greatly from the opinion of Arbitrators and is an active administrator in an area where this decision should absolutely be applicable. Like Carwil, I have no experience with the proper procedure (I'm pretty new here), but I feel very strongly about getting this clarified. Perhaps Wordsmith (or you, PeterTheFourth) can point us in the right direction and make sure we have what we need to raise the issue constructively/fairly. 107.77.218.54 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant
Given Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carriearchdale, specifically, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant is Unrelated to the above accounts. is there an reason this editor should not be unblocked?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, because it shows nothing. It proves that Fouette is not related to that random sock drawer that was uncovered, and that Carriearchdale is not related to that sock drawer. It says nothing about whether or not Fouette and Carriearchdale are related. Indeed, Checkuser cannot say anything about a link between Fouette and Carrie are the same person, because Carrie was blocked well over a year ago and Checkuser data contains nothing past 90 days. That's why I never requested a CU before blocking. Aside from the WP:DUCK, one would think the behavior and harassment alone would be more than sufficient to sustain a block and I'm not sure why anyone would want them unblocked. I will not be overturning it. However, if you still believe I'm mistaken you can take it to WP:AN for review. The Wordsmith 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know the whole story. All I know is I placed a request at WIR for someone to write an article and Fouette stepped up and created it. I was chagrined when it was deleted, and when I saw the SPI, I wondered if Fouette had been swept up by accident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Mistaken warning
Re this warning. While I support the removal, the user did provide a source. Their edit included an improperly formatted inline citation to the NYT. Properly better to just direct them to discuss on the article talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I double checked, and you're right. When I looked at the diff the first time, it only bolded the first half of it and didn't show the second half with the link to the NYT article. I'll leave a note on the IP's talkpage correcting myself. Thanks for the heads up. The Wordsmith 15:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline
On 22 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although Montesquieu had only intended to write a few pages about the decline of the Roman Empire, he eventually produced 277 pages in 23 chapters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
ARCA notice
I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA of which you are named party: action 1, action 2 --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I have some further evidence re the matter you investigated here, which I would like to send via email. My email is enabled but yours doesn't show up for some reason. Oculi (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- That matter is considered to be closed; if you have further private evidence please contact the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith 13:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Italian Mogadishu
Hi. If it's possible, could you please send me the article? There's a lot of useful info in it. AcidSnow (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- If you're going to use it for personal reasons, or plan to substantially rewrite it, I have no problem with doing that. However, edits made by banned users should not be reinstated without thoroughly verifying their content. This banned user in particular has a habit of inserting factual errors into articles such as these. If you still want it I'll send it to you, just be careful of its accuracy. The Wordsmith 21:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am aware and would greatly appreciate it! AcidSnow (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, you want the raw text sent to Special:EmailUser/AcidSnow? The Wordsmith 21:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- If that's where it's post to be sent, then yes. AcidSnow (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, you want the raw text sent to Special:EmailUser/AcidSnow? The Wordsmith 21:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am aware and would greatly appreciate it! AcidSnow (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Broederlijk Delen
The article was not machine-translated. The wiki tool did not even offer the option to do so. Probably the quality of the original point was not perfect but the deletion is pretty random.--QuasiPerlach (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. I took a second look, and I was mistaken in its deletion. I've restored it. The Wordsmith 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
Will you be willing to permit me to file a public ARCA ? Grammar's Li'l Helper 18:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- About what? The Wordsmith 22:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- The topic ban. Grammar's Li'l Helper 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, an appeal at ARCA is explicitly allowed as per the terms of WP:ACDS. I don't see any reason you shouldn't be allowed to appeal there. The Wordsmith 06:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Kamil Husayn Effendi
A couple of hours ago you erased that article which i've translated from hebrew, your reasoning was that it was poor machine-translation. That's wrong. It may be a low quality article, but it was not machine-translated. --melo kol haaretz kevodi (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Sfarney Amendment request: Scientology
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#_Scientology and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.