User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2020/October

Your GA nomination of Lion Attacking a Dromedary
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lion Attacking a Dromedary you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lion Attacking a Dromedary
The article Lion Attacking a Dromedary you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lion Attacking a Dromedary for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lion Attacking a Dromedary
The article Lion Attacking a Dromedary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lion Attacking a Dromedary for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Continued uncivil behavior by editor Calton
Guerillero, earlier this year warned about civility and edit wars [](ARE thread []). I think Calton is failing to follow both the edit warring warning as well as the civility warning. The Andy Ngo article is a contentious article with a 1RR restriction. Calton restored content that is part of an active RFC in a drive by revert edit. Their edit summary was "rv obvious whitewashing". [] Note the current RFC discussion has 13 !votes and leans slightly against inclusion by numbers [link].  I've left a message on Calton's talk page.[]  There response was... well, not meant to be productive to say the least.[]  Do you feel this combination of drive by edit warring and incivility is a violation of your warning from earlier this year?  I will also note it appears others feel Calton's engaging in drive by edit warring [].  Thanks, Springee (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

BLP talk pages
Hi Guerillero. I am hoping for clarification on your understanding of the BLP policies with regard to talking about public figures on talk pages. Is it true that, on a BLP talk page, as one editor put it, expressing negative opinions of public figures is not a problem? Example: if I hold the opinion that some public figure is a total hack and a racist, but I have no RS supporting these opinions, can I say "this guy is a hack and a racist" on the talk page for that person's article, or is that a BLP violation? Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Examples:

The vein of these comments, which are repeatedly sprouting up on this talk page, are completely prohibited by WP:BLP. Since BLP applies to talk pages, this is no different than putting these claims in the article, and none of these statements would pass muster with the sourcing available. It is unacceptable that these editors think it's appropriate to continue to bash a subject who may be politically controversial, and this kind of behavior undermines the credibility of the site and disrupts the discussion. This is what I was referring to when I pinged you on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * we have a long standing term for this kind of buffoonery - Ngo is the very definition of a Hack writer - nothing more, nothing less. by (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC) at the article's talk page.
 * whitewash the biography of a person clearly involved with sowing hatred, racism and division. referencing the subject, in response to a query about their edits at Andy Ngo on their talk page. (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC).
 * This remark, made by an IP. Clearly in the same vein of comments by logged-in editors.
 * Ngo isn't exactly Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite and it is misleading to imply that he is. TFD (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC) by
 * It's clear that he is far from being a journalist, and that his purposes are to produce propaganda in affiliation with hate groups. by another IP
 * I don't think any of those comments rise to the level of action. Partly because they all come from a content discussion. (Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices) None of them claim that Ngo did anything illegal or would cause direct real-world consequences for him that would trigger quick action. Please remember that BLP isn't a tool to remove all negative comments or win a content dispute -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for sanctions, I'm simply asking for a general warning or statement that these statements are not appropriate and to focus on the narrow, content-related questions. Illegality is not the line for BLP. It covers any disparaging or negative information that is unsourced. For editors to make these assertions in the course of a content discussion is absolutely in violation of BLP. My point is not to stifle discussion. Editors can make their content-based arguments based on the available sources and on interpretations of policy without disparaging the subject. The fact that these editors go the extra step to do so is where a clear violation occurs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In your examples above, you pull in a number of comments that wouldn't be considered BLP violations even under the most strict reading of the policy. Both IPs cite The Rolling Stone for their comments. The Four Deuces's comment is an obvious opinion. I find the comment that you attribute to him except you quoting him and I can't find the diff. He later attributes his comments to several sources. Bacondrum's comment is questionable, and I wish he would provide sources for his comments, but they aren't outside of the leeway that I see at BLPTALK. You are heavily INVOLVED here. Please do not violate the talk page guidelines by removing comments in RFCs that you have expressed a strong opinion on -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also still like to be crystal clear here: You're saying that I should feel free to express my unsourced negative opinions of BLPs on talk pages if my opinion is expressed as part of a content discussion? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * BLPTALK gives editors some leeway in the course of content discussions. It is a high bar to refactor comments during an active RfC at the prompting of people who would like an outcome from that RfC. However, I only see one of the comments above that are wholly unsourced. Interrupting Wikipedia to prove a point will probably result in a vacation from a topic area or the project as a whole. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking about refactoring comments. The unsourced comment was precisely the one that concerned me, which is why I asked that editor if they had a source on the talk page. In the past, I have exercised self-discipline in controlling what I say about BLPs on talk pages, and I'd like to know if I need to continue doing so in the future. I'm not trying to disrupt anything. I'm asking politely for your guidance, as you have considerably more experience than I do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I do want some action taken. deserves a boomerang here, and failing some kind of agreement on their behalf to stop their recent disruptive behavior I will take this to ANI. Wikieditor19920 has been seriously bludgeoning the debate and making endless bad faith accusations and refactoring other editors comments simply because he does not like them. This is super disruptive editing and now he is making spurious and vexatious complaints about other editors here. Wikieditor19920 commented 24 times in this survey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo#Survey_%22journalist%22 which is blatant and massively excessive bludgeoning of the debate, by any reasonable measure. If you read through his 24 comments, many are rude and adversarial in tone. They should be subject banned from the article if they can't agree to stop being extremely disruptive and vexatious, they are clearly too invested in the subject. They then go on to comment nearly 20 times in the discussion section and 10 more times in the next survey and discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo#Survey_%22Provocateur%22.Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lion Attacking a Dromedary
Hello! Your submission of Lion Attacking a Dromedary at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will take a look -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lion Attacking a Dromedary
Hi, it has been 2 weeks since I replied to you on the template. Are you still interested in pursuing this nomination, or should we close it as unsuccessful? Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been overwhelmed with work. I will take another look tonight. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

YGM

 * I see your email. I will try to send a reply this evening -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo
The user is continuing to rant about me at Talk:Andy Ngo after filing an ANI thread complaining of incivility on my end, which was closed with no action. This user's comments clearly violate of WP:NPA and WP:FOC.They also claimed that one of my latest edits to the page was Bullshit, before walking that back and realizing that I had correctly represented the source. Separately, they violated 1RR multiple times in the past 24 hours, for which I filed a report, which is still pending.

What the edit-warring report does not address is the continued abusive conduct by this user, who has a long history of similar disputes at ANI. See. This is obviously unacceptable. Would you mind weighing in here, since you've been pretty studious about policing this page? Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is WP:FORUMSHOPing. This editor is full blown harassing me, pinging in admins left right and center, opening numerous avenues of complaint. This should boomerang. They have been bludgeoning all debates, being disruptive and vindictive.
 * My first interaction with this editor was acerbic and uncivil:


 * 
 * And the next was even harsher:


 * 
 * You can see their 140+ mostly uncivil comments, bludgeoning the process throughout the talk page:


 * 
 * I asked them to stop a few times, then reported it to ANI, where they again bludgeoned the process until it was reduced to a content dispute.


 * 
 * And in retaliation opened this edit warring report, despite edit warring themselves:


 * 
 * And since then they've continued to be completely unreasonable and combative even trying to bring in particular admins, I assume they are pinging admins they assume will favor them:


 * EL C:
 * Guerillero:
 * I'm coping an onslaught of hostility from this fella.
 * Bacondrum (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I probably owe Bacondrum a thank-you for showing exactly what I'm talking about yet again. Obviously Bacondrum hasn't denied anything I've said, just lobbed a bunch of untrue counter-accusations unsupported by the provided diffs (at the AN3, they claimed that a three-week old diff of mine showing that I reverted an IP adding errors to the page was "edit-warring," even as Bacondrum violated 1RR, see the diffs at AN3). has made a commendable effort to work with this editor, but it hasn't gotten far and I've seen Springee express frustration at AN3 with Bacondrum's continued edit-warring. The impulsive reverting, name-calling, and hysterics/constant claims of victimhood over reasonable feedback have become exhausting. I hope I can be proven wrong, but I don't think this user has the wherewithal to edit this page in a productive manner.  Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think imposed a much softer sanction than I would have. Both of you are extremely close to being topic banned. and I suggest that yinz rethink your approach over the next month -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

How to request AE page restrictions?
Hi; what's the proper way to request AE page restrictions? The header at the top of WP:ARE says that's the right place, and I read all the instructions there and followed links to look for further instructions on a specific format to make the request with, and even searched through the archives for an example to no avail; but obviously I reached the wrong conclusion and picked the wrong link to click on at the top, since you reverted me saying .Was I supposed to use the same preload as for an enforcement request against a user? I didn't because it seems very customized to its purpose. Thanks, ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 14:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You need the elements of an AE request: place for community comments, place for admin comments, etc. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll give that a try. Thanks! -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 16:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)