User talk:Grufo/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

December 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, your conduct in this matter is explicitly disruptive, and you've done nothing but dig the hole deeper. This block is for explicit canvassing and repeated abuse of process. Acroterion (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Acroterion, this is not the first time you and I have an argument, and in judging me you are definitely not what could be considered an uninvolved administrator. You don't accept being contradicted, but you are still the one who holds a knife. You block me for asking a selected group of editors to clarify while not asking editors whose position is clear to clarify. You even accuse me of “abuse of process” (I repeatedly “canvass”? show me). There is not much else to say if you really believe that you are in the right in blocking me: actions are beautiful enough. --Grufo (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  - Declining an obviously inappropriate unblock request is not an argument, and does not make me involved. I answered a series of questions from you after that block expired, and our interactions were cordial. In canvassing you abused the consensus-finding process - that is not an unsupported aspersion, it is fact, easily discernible on this page through your own statements. You are not entitled to pick and choose who you'll listen to, or to set terms. This is a continuing pattern from you, and my role is consistent with expectations that administrators should try to follow up on issues that they've encountered and with which they are familiar. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    - @Acroterion: I do not consider “uncordial” our interactions (the form), but I do consider prejudiced your positions in judging (more than once) my behavior (the content). But I really don't want to go back – I will if you ask me to. Sticking to the present:

A user proposes renaming A to B
Eight users oppose B
A page gets renamed to C
I interpret these eight users' vote as an opposition to C too, so I cite their diffs, but since I am reinterpreting their vote I let them know that their vote is being reinterpreted (ping)
A user accuses me of canvassing on my talk page
I explain the above
The user insists and, probably knowing that pinging users whose words were being reinterpreted was not canvass but normal courtesy, bypasses the normal procedure described at Wikipedia:Canvassing § How to respond to canvassing and pings an admin who was external to the discussion but had already manifested adverse positions towards me (right or wrong) – you – basically doing a proper WP:CANVASS.
You intervene after the ping, and instead of thanking me for pinging users whose words were being reinterpreted, or instead of inviting the other user not to canvass themselves but to follow the rules described at Wikipedia:Canvassing § How to respond to canvassing, you block me and accuse me of repeated canvassing (once again, WP:ASPERSIONS).

I did not select an audience on the basis of their opinions – which is the basics of what WP:CANVASS means – I let an audience know that I was reinterpreting their words. So, recap. This is what should have happened according to you (please correct me if I am wrong):

I should have reinterpreted other editors' diffs without letting them know
Users should accuse other users of canvassing without following the procedure described at Wikipedia:Canvassing § How to respond to canvassing
Once one is accused and condemned of canvassing they automatically become guilty of “repeated abuse of process”

If this is for letting the world know that you are not prejudiced against me it might be the wrong approach. --Grufo (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: The comment above is of interest for judging whether we are in front of WP:CANVASSING or not. --Grufo (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Grufo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block did not follow any of the normal procedures requested by Wikipedia:Canvassing § How to respond to canvassing (i.e., “1. add a {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page; 2. if they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents”), it was carried by a non-uninvolved administrator with whom I had argued in the past, and presents the aggravating element that such administrator accused me of “repeated abuse of process” (which alone would qualify for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions).

Decline reason:

To unblock you, I would need assurances that you would not canvass in the future. You have not provided any such assurance, so I am declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@PhilKnight:

You have not provided any such assurance: Of course I have not provided any such assurance, and the reason is that I was in the process of discussing whether what I did constituted WP:CANVASS or not. But if I get asked: “Will you WP:CANVASS?”, my answer is clearly “No – I am strongly against unethical behaviors”
The way Acroterion got involved constitutes actual WP:CANVASSING, and my block was not normal procedure. I would actually like to report Vice regent to WP:ANI for canvassing, for involving a particular administrator that they already knew would take a particular favorable position for them, instead of following the normal procedure described at Wikipedia:Canvassing § How to respond to canvassing
The unsuitable nature of the administrator who carried the block is evident from our past interactions and from their recent Wikipedia:Casting aspersions (they accused me of “repeated abuse of process”, i.e., repeated canvassing – which I honestly don't know where it came from)
Going back to the content of the alleged “canvass”: I mentioned eight editors as being against a particular title, but I was not sure myself that they really were, since their “oppose” vote was against another title. It is normal procedure if one speaks for other editors to ping them to confirm that that is actually what they mean

I insist in asking that my block be removed. --Grufo (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: and @Andrewa:, you are two admins who have watched the discussion from close. You know that the rename proposal was “Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world”, but the page in the end was renamed to “History of concubinage in the Muslim world”. I believe that the rename was done without consensus, so I cited eight !oppose vote. However these !oppose votes were officially against “Female slavery and concubinage in the Muslim world”, not officially against “History of concubinage in the Muslim world”, so I pinged the authors of the cited diffs for confirmation that my comment actually represented their point of view also concerning the final title. Do you believe that my ping constitutes WP:CANVASSING? --Grufo (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't help you much. I wish I could but I am of course involved.

But since I am pinged by you, I will say that reading over your talk page, I see a pattern of disruptive behaviour. It seems that you have finally pushed the envelope too far.

Feel free to ping me here again. And it is a short block. I predict that the issue will not go away in that time. I regret that it prevents you from editing my relevant user and user talk pages for now, but you can read them and suggest any edits here, and ping me please.

I imagine it is far more annoying than my earlier experiences of Wikipedia, which were also rather negative. I hope you will hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrewa. Of course, you should not comment on my behavior in particular. But I would like to ask a general question for whoever feels like answering it, so that this discussion becomes useful for the future and I don't remain with the idea that a Kafkian logic rules Wikipedia – you should still feel free to answer or not. What I would like to understand is a general principle:

Premise:

An editor proposes renaming A to B
A group of editors !opposes B
The page gets renamed to C
Editor Y reinterprets the votes against B as an opposition to C too, citing the editors' diffs in support

Dilemma:

Should editor Y accompany these diffs with a ping to the cited editors in order to let them know that their !oppose vote is being reinterpreted?

--Grufo (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

In simple terms, it is a bad idea to ping one side of any discussion whatever the logic. It becomes a terrible idea when other editors point this out and the pinger doubles down on the pinging. Far better to say "oh, ok. I thought this wasn't an issue but I'll ping everyone". --RegentsPark (comment) 15:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention, RegentsPark. Just two points

Strictly concerning my behavior: if what I did was wrong it was wrong no matter what arguments I used to defend it; if it was right it was right no matter what arguments I used to defend it. Good faith does not always come with being good lawyers.
Back to the abstract example, just for clarity, what of these sentences do you think would apply best to editor Y?

In reinterpreting the vote of one side,

editor Y may not ping the cited editors for confirmation
editor Y may ping the cited editors for confirmation
editor Y should ping the cited editors for confirmation
editor Y must ping the cited editors for confirmation

and

may not ping the rest of the participants too
may ping the rest of the participants too
should ping the rest of the participants too
must ping the rest of the participants too

--Grufo (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)--Grufo (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Grufo. I thought I was pretty clear above but .... The xyz, ABC stuff is not the point and it is unlikely that anyone will answer your question. You should not ping one side of a discussion regardless of what A, B or C did. If you do the one sided pinging because you believe there are good reasons to do so, you should back off when you're told that that's not a great idea. Wikipedia functions on collaboration and continually insisting that you're right is not a useful long term editing strategy. Sometimes you just gotta eat it and move on (and, with apologies because this may be uncalled for advice, this is very clearly one of those times and that's what you should be doing here). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark is spot on - all of this was avoidable if you'd acknowledged that you would not repeat the canvassing, instead of doubling down and insisting that you're right and everybody else who has advised you is wrong. This is a persistent problem with your interactions with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As I have been pinged again, I think I should say that I agree with this. Let us look at the spirit not just the letter of the law here. There is a consistent pattern of IDHT above. There is a general consensus that you have overstepped the line in promoting your views. I think you need to accept that. I don't say it is easy.

Feel free to ping me again if I can help in any way. And have a look at this edit and see if you can imagine how close I came to giving up on Wikipedia completely at that stage.

Wikipedia is not perfect. My critic on that occasion is subsequently long MIA after a far nastier dispute in which I was not involved. I regret that we lost him and hope he is OK. I say again, hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: @Acroterion: @Andrewa:

First of all I would like to thank you all three for expressing your points of view, which I find very helpful and constructive. I am really sincere when say this: although I am particularly picky in wanting to discuss logically, I do read beyond the immediate meaning too.

I totally agree with the “backing off” advice, so I guess the point becomes when one needs to back off.

I would also like that a question remains in the background: What kind of canvass is that where one already has eight votes and pinging people only risks to decrease the number of votes?

As long as it was Vice regent arguing with me it was everyday business – if had backed off every time Vice regent argued with me Wikipedia would probably be a worse place. So I did not back off at that point.

I could have backed off after Acroterion was pinged and entered the discussion with “This "confirm" business makes no sense, why would anybody need to confirm their own obvious comment, unless you're just trying to round up participants to overturn the move?”, but I felt that Acroterion's suggestion was morally wrong. That is because I sincerely believed that

pinging editors was against my interest – as that could potentially decrease the number of votes – but was nevertheless the right thing to do
I needed to notify the editors if their vote was not so obvious for me
no “round up of participants” to overturn the move was needed: I alone was sufficient to open a WP:MR (which is what I started doing immediately afterwards by notifying the mover on their Talk Page – anchor)

I didn't have the feeling of being right, I had the feeling that an admin was entering a discussion giving a wrong advice – and I say that without judgement, because everyone can take a position in a hurry, and probably the fact that different titles were involved was not so clear. Also, more than one thing sounded off, like the way in which the admin was chosen, which had canvass features itself (“The last admin to comment on your talk page was @Acroterion: so lets ask them if this constitutes canvassing” – diff, anchor).

If Acroterion had suggested me “ping everyone else too for courtesy” I would have probably done that easily – I love courtesy. But I was being told that I should have used other editors' votes without asking if these still apply. That felt wrong and I did not back off.

For example, would you really be sure that BilledMammal's proposal “History of slave-concubinage in Islam” was against “History of concubinage in the Muslim world”? I was not sure – although I believed it was against.

I could have backed off in front of the simple authority of an admin, but by character I cannot do that, as I think that admins are human too and even admins need to make sense when they argue.

That was it, I got blocked for not “backing off” when I believed that an admin was giving a wrong advice.

I could have backed off after being blocked, but then we would not have had this discussion, in which I tried to point out that many things were off in this decision process.

Me pointing out other editors' flaws in the decision process might sound quite narcissistic, but is quite normal in a discussion after a block in which the block is contested. Nevertheless, if you ask me what I think about the various points after discussing with all of you, and if I think that I should have done things differently, here are some answers:

Should I have pinged everyone instead of only a group of editors? Yes, it would have been better, as it would have avoided bad feelings
Should I have avoided pinging editors? No, I really believe that a ping was opportune
Was this decision process carried out without flaws and the block opportune? Probably not
When should have I backed off? After Vice regent's first message, pinging everyone immediately and avoiding the following inconveniences
Do I think that what I did constitutes canvass? Very likely not, as it could not influence the renaming outcome in any other way than by potentially decreasing the number of !oppose votes

--Grufo (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And you are still not backing off. We are a collaboration. We need teamwork. You show no interest in this. You just want your own way. That cannot end well. Andrewa (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewa: What kind of back off would it be needed more than me saying that I should have pinged everyone as soon as the dispute began (and that applies to future analogous situations too)? What else does Wikipedia ask me to do? --Grufo (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

This edit by an IP editor appears to be block evasion by Grufo.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Are you accusing me of sockpuppetry? --Grufo (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: @Acroterion: @Andrewa:

Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation. Is Toddy1 not obliged to open an investigation after their message? Or otherwise what is the sense of leaving a message in the first place, other than WP:HUSH? --Grufo (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Either you've evading a block with an IP, or somebody's setting you up to look like you are. Either way, it's a bad thing, so I've blocked the IP. No further action is required by other editors, since it's been dealt with. Acroterion (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Until yesterday I was blocked – period. Today I am still blocked but maybe I am “evading a block with an IP” (from India, apparently). I would very much like to go back to “simply blocked” without the “maybe evading” part. And as WP:HUSH is a funny sport for some users, I would very much like to discourage any WP:HUSH temptations. Do you think we can ask a CheckUser to verify? --Grufo (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Checkusers generally won't do that in a simple matter like this, and there's no point in asking - it's dealt with either way. You would do better to review the advice you've been given here so you can edit productively when your block expires than to concern yourself with what the IP looks like it's doing. The IP's activities should not be a distraction, and focusing on whether you think you've been maligned or not will accomplish nothing. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I understand that in a normal situation this would be something that checkusers would not even notice. But look at my Talk Page; what point does it have to reach for me to complain about WP:HUSH? One of Andrewa's last messages said “reading over your talk page, I see a pattern of disruptive behaviour”. In this pattern (besides tons of warning coming always from the same three users) there is definitely the WP:HUSH message left by Iskandar323, for which I had asked for your help. I guess next time Andrewa or anyone else will look at my talk page there will be also this “Block evasion” paragraph, which potentially comes from something pretty bad (if someone is trying to make it look like I am evading a block it is WP:HARASSMENT – much worse than the sockpuppetry that would normally move checkusers), but might also due to the fact that maybe I am “evading a block with an IP”. I wonder what will take finally to make a move. I am trying to say it in every way I can that all these little facts, when put together, are not normal. --Grufo (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that IP is Grufo. I think it is someone I've been watching for a long time and who has engaged in consistent sockpuppetry but these days uses a range of IPs to evade detection. Because of the tendency to use a range, I will request semi-protection for that article. I can give more details if requested.VR _talk 05:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: @Acroterion: @Andrewa: @Bbb23: @PhilKnight:

People feel entitled to edit my Talk Page disruptively. WP:HARASSMENT is a serious misbehavior, and is already influencing the tranquillity whereby I contribute to Wikipedia. In this last case we are talking about an insinuation of “block evasion”.

Toddy1 was involved in another major unpleasant WP:HUSH episode concerning my Talk Page, and it looks like it is important for Toddy1 that WP:HUSH messages grow in number. In that episode, after I fixed the imprecision that concubinage was a 14th century revival in the Concubinage (law) page, I was hit by this WP:HUSH message left by Iskandar323. I then asked Iskandar323 to clean their WP:HUSH from my page, but Toddy1 removed my comment from Iskandar323's Talk Page. Letting alone the fact that removing comments from another user's Talk Page would be worth a block, there is only one way to interpret that edit by Toddy1: they like that false accusations are present in my Talk Page and they want to make sure that they stay where they are.

I am asking to be granted the right to defend myself from insinuations in a way or another; not for a small episode like this, but for a series of multiple episodes, which I would like not to enable further. I am asking that one or more of the following things happen:

Toddy1 amends their insinuations, clarifying that it was not the correct way to proceed
An admin warns Toddy1, telling them that it was not the correct way to proceed
An investigation is formally opened via CheckUsers

--Grufo (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Vice regent that the IP looks unrelated. That's the source of the harassment, not Toddy1 - it was a reasonable conclusion for them to draw. Please stop demanding that other editors conform to your expectations, and please stop treating Wikipedia as a legal process. This is a continuing problem with your behavior, and I strongly advise you to accept our conclusions and move on to a focus on productive editing, rather than accumulating grievances. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: The IP did not leave a message on my Talk Page, Toddy1 did. Toddy1 is an experienced user, who knows how to geolocate an IP address and also knows the sockpuppet Vice regent is talking about. I am not saying that Toddy1 is the IP address, I am saying that Toddy1 took the opportunity offered by the IP address (whoever they are) for insinuating sockpuppetry without opening an investigation (which is verbatim what they did). As insinuations could be a pattern for Toddy1, as the previous WP:HUSH episode shows, exactly like you like to invite people to find a moment to back off, there is another moment when people stand up and say “That's enough!”. I am sure you can understand this. I also cannot avoid to notice that you keep insisting in focusing on me even in front of a user removing comments from another user's Talk Page, about which once again you avoid expressing any comment. I guess I should ask you explicitly then: What do you think about this edit by Toddy1, aimed at keeping WP:HUSH on my Talk Page? --Grufo (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you listen to the admins telling you to back off and stop treating Wikipedia like a legal progress. Endlessly calling upon discrete interactions with different editors and attempting to bundle it together into some sort of imagined campaign of harassment against yourself was exactly what got you blocked in October 2021 for abuse of process. If you want to call my warning message on your talk page after you deleted a tertiary source simply because you disagreed with it WP:HUSH, I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the retaliatory warning message that you left on my talk page a mere 26 minutes later, or the second warning message you left 20 days later. Were you hushing me? Cherry-picking your evidence on Wikipedia rarely pays and is not a good look, as most editors have long memories and Wikipedia is the ultimate paper trail. I haven't touched your talk page in over a month and have barely interacted with you in recent weeks, but here you are trying to drag me through the mud. For what it's worth, I also think Toddy1 made the wrong call in attributing that IP address input to you - not least because your unrepentent belief that your were right in canvassing one side of a dispute make it extremely unlikely that you would ever ping me like this. However, the timing of the appearance of the message from an IP address was odd and I think Toddy1's conclusion was an innocent mistake. As for Toddy1's editing of my talk page, I can police that myself, thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, I think Toddy1's comment was understandable given this IP is clearly trying to impersonate you. Toddy1 seems to have applied WP:DUCK, but DUCK can also be used to set someone up. I've seen users blocked for sockpuppetry, the block is upheld by multiple admins, only to be found unjustified by ArbCom or upon further consideration. So mistakes can obviously be made. I agree that if you're upset, direct it towards the IP impersonating you, not Toddy1.VR _talk 17:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent:

I cannot be upset against the IP address, as the IP address never tried to impersonate me, as I will try to show.

Even WP:DUCK does not justify insinuations. But here it's potentially much worse than that.

Let's analyze what happened.

What is the element that could make the IP address look like me? The fact that they ping (almost) the same persons I pinged and the fact that they use |prefix= and |p= in the {{Ping}} template in the same way as I did.

What is the simplest explanation if one wants to use Occam's razor?

An IP address is trying to impersonate me
Impersonating me was never the IP's intention; the IP only wanted to ping the same people I pinged for whatever reason, so they copied verbatim from my comment the list of people to ping, lazily retaining my ping syntax and the username order

I would say the second.

What does the experienced user Toddy1 do after seeing a WP:DUCK that looks and sounds like Souniel Yadav, whose voice they had analyzed in depth? They choose the least likely explanation, in the hope of convincing everyone that that's the most likely WP:DUCK possible and they will not have anyway to respond for their actions thanks to a good excuse. But unfortunately for Toddy1 that is not the case: if one suspects sockpuppetry they either remain silent or they request a full investigation, as nothing good can ever come from insinuating.

There was no strange “timing” in the appearance of that sockpuppet, as the IP's intention was never that of impersonating me: it was Toddy1's idea that of associating that IP address with me and insinuating that I was evading a block or that someone wanted to impersonate me.

I was happily enjoying my block and the sockpuppet was happily doing their usual sockpuppetry: only one editor decided to do something different: Toddy1.

--Grufo (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

All you're accomplishing with this is feeding a probable troll, and reinforcing the impression that you won't accept advice, no matter what. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged again (and I do not complain about that, I asked for it) I will again give my advice. Stop arguing about it. Maybe you have a case, but overall it's not a strong one. Wikipedia is not about justice to editors, and blocks and bans are not about punishing editors. We like to be fair, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not a community. The community is just a means to that end.

If you want to help build that encyclopedia, then one of the best things you can do is to demonstrate that commitment and priority. If you want a debate, there are other forums that would better suit that agenda. Andrewa (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Greetings,

I would like to suggest some strategic patience so you do not end up exhausting your options.

At least be more particular that you do not get blocked and banned again.

Many times working on peripheral articles might benefit more than wasting energy in a single talk page dispute.

I do have interesting list of articles to work on which needs help in article expansion from users like you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: Thank you for the appreciation. Every little thing is important. What I don't have much in this period of my life is time – which is why I was particularly thankful to the pause that the block allowed me to take. I don't know if my energy is wasted when I try to affirm principles – maybe it is, maybe it is not. I will be happy to help on other articles as soon as my time will allow it, but for now it is hard for me to broaden the scope in any way. --Grufo (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I would add that sometimes less is more. I was tempted to jump in and argue in favor of overturning at WP:MR. However, I was put off by the sheer number of contributions you made at the move request. In light of this, I am choosing not to participate in the MR. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Adoring nanny. I am tired. I am tired of all the WP:GAMING that has been going on on that page for more than one year, with two renaming attempts (#1, #2), each followed by a POVFORK, and only for pleasing the apologetic desires of a group of users and remove “sexual slavery” from a title of a page that talks about sexual slavery. I am tired of being the one who gets judged, although I am not the focus of judgement in a renaming dispute. Although I agree with your suggestion (I really do), I advice you please to consider me as a broken clock. Focus on the content and forget the editors if you care about the encyclopedia, and do not forget that even a broken clock will be right twice a day. --Grufo (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I get it. I get tired of the same things. But one still needs to restrain oneself. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Auc

		The Template Barnstar
		I don't usually like to clutter up the edit window with templates when I can simply type things out, not least of all because most templates aren't very flexible. But I'm truly impressed with the template you've made, which allows for an astonishing number of permutations, considering how simple its purpose is! I may not always want to use it, but I appreciate the hard work that must have gone into designing it, and the vast extent of its functionality. Those deserve a barnstar! P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Thank you! Truly appreciated ^^ --Grufo (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vsep

Template:Vsep has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Template function should be clear from the template name

This is a request to create templates with clear names. Creating templates with names like "Tji" is not helpful to editors. For further information, please see Wikipedia:Template namespace#Guidelines, specifically: Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jonesey95. I agree on the principle, I just am not so sure that {{Template journal inline}} is of any clarity; to understand that name you must first know that {{Template journal}} exists, and then realize that this is an inline version of that. Then you must anyway read the doc to understand what it actually does. Whereas with {{tj}} and {{tji}} it is pretty immediate to remember that two-three-letter templates that start with a “t” usually serve the purpose of linking and displaying the syntax of other templates in various forms. Personally if someone told me to use {{Template journal inline}} I wouldn't know what that is meant to do. So I did my best to be clear in the names, but I guess that which name is the clear one is pretty subjective. --Grufo (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: You should also always check what pages link there and leave a redirect when you move things. If you go to Template:Tji/style.css you can read:

16:41, 21 April 2023 Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) moved page Template:Tji/style.css to Template:Template journal inline/style.css without leaving a redirect (templates should have comprehensible names, per guidelines) (revert) (thank)

In fact, if you go to {{tji}} now you will see a broken link at the bottom of the page (under § Subpages). --Grufo (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Re the broken link, I had already fixed it; the page just needed a null edit to refresh the cache. As for the names, see the guideline, and also the history of many of the T* template pages, which have been moved from obscure names like "Tl" to readable names like "Template link". Redirects are always left behind for convenience. If "Template journal inline" or "Template journal", the long versions of the names that you chose and put in the documentation, are not understandable, then you may have started out with suboptimal names from the beginning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ast

Template:Ast has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"> for wikitext and template code

We now have Pygments version 2.15, and it includes the Wikitext lexer, which provides wikitext and mediawiki as valid values for the lang= attribute (The two appear to be synonymous.). So {{tj}} and {{tji}} has become obsolete. -- Cedar101 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid you might not have got what {{tj}} and {{tji}} really do:

They force the showcasing of a template in a standard multi- or single-line format, independently of how you write it
Similarly to {{tlx}}, they add a link to the template showcased (indeed they belong to the category of Internal template-link templates) – this has also the advantage that a backlink will be added to the “What links here” page of the template showcased
Differently than {{tlx}}, they allow an easy way to write the equals sign using colons
On top of all this, they use colors

In synthesis, they are like {{tlx}}, but using colons for the equals sign and adding colors. Their strongest advantage against <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"> is that they provide a standard format concerning the way templates are shown – whereas if you use something different it is not guaranteed that there will not be, for instance, two spaces after a vertical bar (|), or that an irregular indentation is used, and so on. On top of that, add that the way <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"> displays colors might not be as clear. Compare

{{tj}}:
{{Blockquote
| Cry "Havoc" and let slip the dogs of war.
| [[William Shakespeare]]
| character = Mark Antony
| title = ''[[Julius Caesar (play)|Julius Caesar]]''
| source = act III, scene I
}}

<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">...</syntaxhighlight>:

{{Blockquote
	| Cry "Havoc" and let slip the dogs of war.
	| [[William Shakespeare]]
	| character = Mark Antony
	| title = ''[[Julius Caesar (play)|Julius Caesar]]''
	| source = act III, scene I
}}

But the latter is only a detail; if tomorrow they changed <syntaxhighlight> to imitate {{tj}}'s colors strictly, it would still not provide a solution to how to showcase templates in a standard way while linking them at the same time – like {{tj}} and {{tji}} do. And that – not colors – is their main purpose.

I think that <syntaxhighlight> is great if you want to write a page on how to program in WikiText, whereas instead {{tj}} and {{tji}} are the way to go if you are showcasing a particular template. --Grufo (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)