User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2021/July

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
 * Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: July 2021
--evrik (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I-ban
Hey Guerillero,

Several weeks ago I started a discussion at Jan Żaryn which centers around one of my edits. A person who has a 2-way I-ban with me (which you imposed) participated in the discussion, commenting several times on my proposals and on the discussion itself. I don't believe persons who are banned from interacting with me are allowed to opine on my proposals, count themselves towards a consensus on my proposals, or opine on someone's analysis of sources that I brought to the table. If I ask a question and you reply with "I agree with what John wrote", then you're replying to my question whether you say so explicitly or not.

What do you think of this? François Robere (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell GizzyCatBella edited the article before you did. On talk they've only responded to other editors, not you. However, strangely enough, one of these editors, one who agrees with you about everything, Mhorg, always seems to bring up your name in their replies to Gizzy. Weird, huh? It's ... as if... they wanted Gizzy to respond to a comment that has your username in it or something. On purpose.  Volunteer Marek   06:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, the last time you approached Guerillero was in 2014. How did you learn about my message?
 * WP:IBAN forbids making references to an editor one is banned from interacting with. That's my thread, these are my proposals; saying "we don't have consensus" or "I agree with Marek" - about what? About this! That's a blunt IBAN violation however you turn it
 * What Mhorg does or doesn't do has nothing to do with this, but for the record - your accusation is factually incorrect. They've only done it twice, and in both cases they were on-point. As for you - you've been asked to avoid making bad faith accusations twice in the last month alone, yet here you are. François Robere (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have Guerillero on my watchlist cuz they a big shot around here, obviously, and chances that someone will go running to them agitatin’ for a sanction in bad faith are high. GCB didn’t make any references to you. GCB edited that article first before you swooped in and tried to “carve it out” as yours. And Mhorg doing it “only twice” is hardly a good argument. And when you’re here yourself making bad faith accusations you’re not really in a position to complain about people complaining, are you?  Volunteer Marek   12:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, the underlying question was already addressed here with experienced editors (including one admin who’s kind of active in this TA) saying that it (commenting in a RfC or discussion started by a fellow IBan-ee, as long as you don’t reference them) is allowed.
 * Also, importance context here is that the IBAN was imposed due to YOU following GCB around, not vice versa (which is also kind of what happened here, since GCB edited the article first), and the only reason it was made mutual was cuz “one way bans don’t work” (according to some admins).  Volunteer Marek   12:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Marek, you're an expert in throwing mud, and I've had enough.
 * , can I have your opinion please? François Robere (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re the one showing up here trying to manipulate admins into sanctioning someone you have an IBAN with, not me (let me guess this is suppose to be one of those BANEX exceptions - so why didn’t you file a formal report). Again, not really in a position to accuse others of “throwing mud”.
 * Oh, and while we’re on the topic your whole complaint above that “Volunteer Marek made bad faith accusations” where you provide this diff? Somehow you fail to mention that there I was complaining that a brand new account was a likely sock (you accused me of “casting aspersions”) annnndddddd… turns out the account was a sock (this was obvious to everyone, including those who were accusing me of “bad faith”), and a very abusive one at that . So my “accusation” was 100% legit and correct. Kind of pertinent, doncha think?
 * Anyway, I’m done here, sorry Guerillero.  Volunteer Marek   13:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually this diff was at least partly to you accusing me of editing on behalf of an "indef banned users", despite the fact that it was my addition to begin with? And you repeated that false accusation several times throughout the page and ANI, despite being told otherwise. Is that not pertinent as well? And what about the fact that the day before you attacked another editor so badly, that he filed a second ANI naming you? And now you're spewing dirt against me when I go ask for advice from an admin, and you all but admit that you only follow their talk page to follow me? François Robere (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Guerillero - Please note and see WP:BANEX policy.

Quote from WP:BANEX:

user is allowed: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation )
 * Above, I provided a diff (once - as per rules) of WP:IBAN violation in this very discussion. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please leave GCB alone, like your Iban is supposed to do. Might I suggest that you edit about a topic that isn't in your mutual interest? If you can't exist in the same universe as GCB and knowing that she might be involved in the same discussion as you, it might be time to topic ban you from Poland. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 02:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I came for your advice in good faith, good standing, and without a single violation under my belt. If you recall, I'm the one who asked for the I-ban to be extended, and I did so precisely because I wanted to be "left alone". I don't think it odd to expect that an I-ban would prevent parties from commenting on each other's messages, nor do I think it unreasonable to ask an admin about it. Thanks for clarifying. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach proposed close
In your upcoming close of the CutePeach AE I anticipate you will address the filer’s exact same behavior they have reported, as they are a much more experienced editor, that it takes two to edit war, and out of basic fairness for not sanctioning only one person when two are at odds. For the diffs please see my statement at AE. Please keep in mind that CutePeach is a very new but promising editor and a sanction is likely to drive away another editor (who is also female from an underrepresented demographic). Mr Ernie (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to file an AE thread about the OP, I know you know how to file one. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 00:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah that’s what I thought. This gender gap bluster is just for show. I’ve never actually filed an AE before. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)