Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) →Admins: new section Because the admin loses his tools at once and can only have them back if he chooses to return and address the issues and does so convincingly.. That way they can't get the flu and call out till the case blows over or is forgotten. This provides a positive incentive to take WP:ADMINACCT more seriously than have those dessysopped by this method have done. Tag: New topic |
Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) →Admins: Reply And after the unblocking debacle, I still think he needs as CTOP/R&I notice. That'll show 'm Tag: Reply |
||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
Because the admin loses his tools at once and can only have them back if he chooses to return and address the issues and does so convincingly.. That way they can't get the flu and call out till the case blows over or is forgotten. This provides a positive incentive to take [[WP:ADMINACCT]] more seriously than have those dessysopped by this method have done. [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 19:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |
Because the admin loses his tools at once and can only have them back if he chooses to return and address the issues and does so convincingly.. That way they can't get the flu and call out till the case blows over or is forgotten. This provides a positive incentive to take [[WP:ADMINACCT]] more seriously than have those dessysopped by this method have done. [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 19:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
:And after the unblocking debacle, I still think he needs as CTOP/R&I notice. That'll show 'm [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 19:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:18, 28 March 2023
Feel free to push my button:
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Mozart
In the RfC, can you please say what kind(s) of infobox? See the discussion for Carl Nielsen, and the discussion about minimal infoboxes on Classical music. Do we really have to make people run into each other three places? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, I think it's better to just have a very brief, very neutral "Should the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have an infobox?" RFC question. Feel free of course to make a comment in the RFC suggesting a specific infobox or linking to any other discussions you think are relevant. Levivich (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Understand. Did you see the other two discussions, before or now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen them before but I did see them now. For my part, I don't really care about all composers, I just care about the big ones like Mozart. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) to clarify: I don't need more questions about my agenda, when I have tried tried tried to avoid the topic for about seven years, so better don't say a word - see also 2015.
- (after edit conflict) For my part, it's the opposite, see 2021. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Have you seen Mozart? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Haha, no I had not, thanks for letting me know. If I had a nickel for every time someone here called me a Nazi, I'd have to declare myself a paid editor. Levivich (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen them before but I did see them now. For my part, I don't really care about all composers, I just care about the big ones like Mozart. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Understand. Did you see the other two discussions, before or now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | |
my story today |
- I am less concerned about someone calling you a Nazi but - further up in that thread - that a whole side of users to an RfC was compared to the Wehrmacht, a military organization, saying - my understanding - that the "invasion" of another article by an RfC is organised warfare. It discredits all who came, as not coming freely and independently. The myth that I'm behind all this seems not to die. I think that an RfC should be published neutrally to all projects involded, - no idea if by a bot or a person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm actually most concerned by someone insisting the Wehrmacht weren't Nazis. Levivich (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's the same kind of going for myths, do you see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm watching Mozart, still determined to not get burned there, and see that you pinged (2nd list) Jerome Kohl who died, and have Davey twice. - I also watch the CM Mozart, thanks for investigating, but I can't help find Russian military presently an even greater provocation than German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did not ping in the 2nd list, that was someone else. :-) Levivich (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for support, - flowers further up to not interfere with arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Composer Marek Kopelent died, and it's Saint Patrick's Day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did not ping in the 2nd list, that was someone else. :-) Levivich (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm actually most concerned by someone insisting the Wehrmacht weren't Nazis. Levivich (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am less concerned about someone calling you a Nazi but - further up in that thread - that a whole side of users to an RfC was compared to the Wehrmacht, a military organization, saying - my understanding - that the "invasion" of another article by an RfC is organised warfare. It discredits all who came, as not coming freely and independently. The myth that I'm behind all this seems not to die. I think that an RfC should be published neutrally to all projects involded, - no idea if by a bot or a person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
- ... better context ... - what happened to your archive 5? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- today we remember the 150th birthday of Max Reger, who saw the horrors of a world war right when it began in 1914, while others were still in high patriotic moods - talking about our smaller "war" here: see the talk where I - as the principal editor - had to defend my choice of an infobox, while the typical argument is that the principal editors decide, - well, I managed, a first at the time! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are now subject to a two-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, with the exception of participation on the case pages of the upcoming Holocaust in Poland case. This sanction will expire at the resolution of the Arbcom case.
You have been sanctioned The back and forth between you two is disruptive to the topic area, and you're both crossing the line into personal attacks. Keep your commentary at the case pages on point, and I suggest you avoid back and forth on the case talk pages.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- On what pages has there been disruption that this is meant to prevent? Levivich (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research most recently, as well as directly above. The entire dynamic between you two is doing nothing but raising the temperature in the topic area. You'll have plenty of opportunity to make your case at Arbcom, and until that is done, you'll have to avoid them. The other option is that you'll end up blocked or topic banned for making comments like this. I ask that you step back and think for a bit on if your recent interactions with VM have been in any way constructive. The case it looks like you're aiming to make will be better placed at arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- My own user talk page and one Signpost talk page doesn't seem very widespread or long lasting, nor is it disrupting anyone. The guy calls me an icewhiz proxy and all kinds of things for years -- compared me to Eric Trump, saying I was like Icewhiz's son, just yesterday -- and nothing. I make one let-me-tell-you-how-I-really-feel comment and it's a two-way IBAN without so much as a warning even after I've struck it. (Btw, do you have a second example of me saying anything like that? I don't think so.) I'm not making any kind of case, and a whole bunch of you need to stop viewing this as an interpersonal dispute, and start recognizing what the rest of the world sees. Levivich (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- All of those seem like great things to bring up at the upcoming case before the highest tier of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. If you're not interested in being involved in making any kind of case, then making cases about a topic that is currently before arbcom on other pages probably isn't the route to take. The reason the iban is two-way is that neither of you is blameless. The point of the iban is to head off the obviously growing issue and not have to resort to blocks or other severe sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Did you consider heading off the growing issue by telling me to shut up and not having to resort to sanctions at all? Levivich (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did, yes. I considered it seriously, but seeing the back and forth between you I didn't think that a warning would have been effective. I went with the lightest touch I thought would be effective. A two-way iban until the arbcom case ends seemed like a reasonable way to handle it with no one ending up blocked or topic banned. Short term, time limited, and you can still present whatever you'd like at the case. It will also keep any back and forth between you two isolated to where the root of the issue is being deliberated. I'm sorry if you feel I went too hard and I understand you think I made the wrong call, but believe me, I thought long and hard about this. Things were clearly escalating, and I'd rather cut things off now than risk more severe sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Dude shut up" is all it would have taken. Levivich (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which wouldn't have addressed VM's behavior, who has already been warned. As your interactions were antagonistic back and forth for a month, I didn't figure action against them alone in the form of a one-way iban or block would be the right move. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Had you considered trying "Dude shut up" with him? You tried nothing prior to instituting a logged AE sanction, correct? No one else tried anything either? Levivich (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which wouldn't have addressed VM's behavior, who has already been warned. As your interactions were antagonistic back and forth for a month, I didn't figure action against them alone in the form of a one-way iban or block would be the right move. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Dude shut up" is all it would have taken. Levivich (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did, yes. I considered it seriously, but seeing the back and forth between you I didn't think that a warning would have been effective. I went with the lightest touch I thought would be effective. A two-way iban until the arbcom case ends seemed like a reasonable way to handle it with no one ending up blocked or topic banned. Short term, time limited, and you can still present whatever you'd like at the case. It will also keep any back and forth between you two isolated to where the root of the issue is being deliberated. I'm sorry if you feel I went too hard and I understand you think I made the wrong call, but believe me, I thought long and hard about this. Things were clearly escalating, and I'd rather cut things off now than risk more severe sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Did you consider heading off the growing issue by telling me to shut up and not having to resort to sanctions at all? Levivich (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- All of those seem like great things to bring up at the upcoming case before the highest tier of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. If you're not interested in being involved in making any kind of case, then making cases about a topic that is currently before arbcom on other pages probably isn't the route to take. The reason the iban is two-way is that neither of you is blameless. The point of the iban is to head off the obviously growing issue and not have to resort to blocks or other severe sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: I can see six direct replies to VM from Levivich on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research. I struggle to see how this is unusual or a disruptive "back and forth", especially since they are mostly in a section started by VM about VM's conduct (so most people in that thread are talking to VM). An AE action here, without warning, seems completely out of proportion to me and risks muddying the waters of the upcoming ArbCom case. Please reconsider. – Joe (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned about muddying the waters at the Arbcom case, and the interactions above were not the only ones I considered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then please list the others. Levivich (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive349#Chapmansh is another. I don't have a full list handy right now, but the interaction on this page, at the signpost, and at AN clearly illustrate the on-going escalation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish Were you aware of this sanction imposed on VM before you issued this I-ban? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but it specifically states
...the above only applies to articles and article talk pages
. I haven't reviewed all of their recent article and article talk edits to see if they've run afoul of that sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but it specifically states
- @ScottishFinnishRadish Were you aware of this sanction imposed on VM before you issued this I-ban? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive349#Chapmansh is another. I don't have a full list handy right now, but the interaction on this page, at the signpost, and at AN clearly illustrate the on-going escalation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then please list the others. Levivich (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not concerned about muddying the waters at the Arbcom case, and the interactions above were not the only ones I considered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- My own user talk page and one Signpost talk page doesn't seem very widespread or long lasting, nor is it disrupting anyone. The guy calls me an icewhiz proxy and all kinds of things for years -- compared me to Eric Trump, saying I was like Icewhiz's son, just yesterday -- and nothing. I make one let-me-tell-you-how-I-really-feel comment and it's a two-way IBAN without so much as a warning even after I've struck it. (Btw, do you have a second example of me saying anything like that? I don't think so.) I'm not making any kind of case, and a whole bunch of you need to stop viewing this as an interpersonal dispute, and start recognizing what the rest of the world sees. Levivich (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research most recently, as well as directly above. The entire dynamic between you two is doing nothing but raising the temperature in the topic area. You'll have plenty of opportunity to make your case at Arbcom, and until that is done, you'll have to avoid them. The other option is that you'll end up blocked or topic banned for making comments like this. I ask that you step back and think for a bit on if your recent interactions with VM have been in any way constructive. The case it looks like you're aiming to make will be better placed at arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened
Hello Levivich,
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- I tried (see my talk page). I know you didn't want to participate in the ArbCom case so feel free to ignore this. You'd probably be better at getting at the heart of what I've been trying to say if you changed your mind, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Quick question regarding the RfC for the Mozart infobox issue
I am unfamiliar with the process of closing an RfC. Is there a projected day/time when the RfC will close? Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Chefs-kiss: The RFC banner will be automatically removed after 30 days, but there is no set day/time when the RFC will actually close. See WP:RFCCLOSE for the details, but basically, when the discussion dries up (a week or so with no new votes), someone will come along and close it. If this doesn't happen, you (or anyone) can list it at WP:CR. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Timely article
Schatz, Daniel (2023-03-21). "How Poland Distorts Its Holocaust History". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2023-03-24. Levivich (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Evidence
FYC: Special:Diff/1146771313 Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
OMG
I saw that edit years ago. Looks like he unblocked someone who shares his ideology, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- "When someone shows you who they are, believe them." Levivich (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- SMDH -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Should I give him a CTOP alert? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nah, I don't think he's edited much in the topic area lately (or any other topic area). Levivich (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- We need a {{uw-cowboy}}:
Hello, I'm Levivich. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a cowboy admin action and has been reverted. If you want to practice admin actions, please use the sandbox or User:Example.
Levivich (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Should I give him a CTOP alert? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- SMDH -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Admins
Because the admin loses his tools at once and can only have them back if he chooses to return and address the issues and does so convincingly.. That way they can't get the flu and call out till the case blows over or is forgotten. This provides a positive incentive to take WP:ADMINACCT more seriously than have those dessysopped by this method have done. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- And after the unblocking debacle, I still think he needs as CTOP/R&I notice. That'll show 'm -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)