User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2022/November

Deletion review for Terracon
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Terracon. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Appeal
I figure this is going to go absolutely nowhere, so I see no reason to post this on the enforcement page, but I figured I'd appeal the sanction. If you actually look at the comments from people there, most of them didn't support a sanction - the handful who did were deeply, deeply involved on the other side of the debate, and have reasons to want me removed.

I'll fully acknowledge - as I did on the enforcement page - that my behavior is on me. My behavior was not acceptable on this dispute. I allowed myself to get baited by people, and it doesn't matter if they accuse me of believing an insane conspiracy theory or edit war themselves. I shouldn't have tagged people, either - that was a knee-jerk, angry response to being tagged myself, and I should have known better. I can understand only looking at what FormalDude presented (which I believe, to be clear, was highly skewed) - even if it's missing context - and feeling that way. I made a bunch of bad decisions in a very short span of time.

After the one-week ban, I was able to cool down and engage in things specifically - including starting an RfC on the dispute page in question, Talk:Republican Party (United States), which has led to a productive exchange that should lead to some form on consensus (I'll note that FormalDude advocated shutting it down, and shut down a similar attempt at Talk:Stacey Abrams out of process). I've engaged similarly at Talk:Stacey Abrams and Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard.

That being said, the brunt of my contributions in this area is not unproductive. My focus in the area is productive - I have a top-importance featured list (List of states and territories of the United States), I police hundreds of articles, including places like Blue Dog Caucus, New Democrat Coalition, and Congressional Progressive Caucus (where IP editors routinely change political positions/ideology in ways that are beyond unhelpful and contradictory to sourcing), dozens of election pages (where I police endorsement lists for WP:ENDORSEMENT, including the ever-present threat of non-notable Twitter endorsements), I've started discussions that led to new consensuses on the use of image tables in election articles, led a substantial rework of Factions in the Democratic Party (United States) and the creation of Demographics of the Democratic Party (United States), engaged in "Herculean labours" of nominating dozens of unimportant political parties for deletion, policed the Center for Immigration Studies and John Tanton articles for racist editors attempting to downplay his role in eugenics and white nationalism, etc.

Like I said there, I think a sanction that would be more useful is a WP:1RR or 0RR restriction that would allow me to engage in good faith discussion while eliminating edit warring as a possibility. I don't think my behavior, on the whole, is bad enough to warrant complete removal of the topic; when my behavior does reach problems, it is almost entirely due to edit warring. A 1RR restriction in particular would allow me to continue discussion and the routine cleanup of articles that few other people are engaging in - the only outlet left to me would be productive discussion, in other words. Like I said before - this worked with the Republican Party and Stacey Abrams articles, where I am fairly confident discussion has proven to be a net plus for both. I think the downside here to the encyclopedia is little to none. I don't think an outright, straight to an indefinite ban is truly justified here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Toa Nidhiki05: The consensus of uninvolved admins was that you should be topic banned, with a 0RR being rejected. This decision was partly based off of your actions at Talk:Stacey Abrams and edit warring while at AE. I think it is for the best that the topic ban stays for the next 6-12 months. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 12:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Figured as much. Toa Nidhiki05 14:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter
The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
 * Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
 * Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
 * PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
 * Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
 * Pirate Flag of Jack Rackham.svg Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
 * Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
 * Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
 * Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Getting hitched
I will be away for a while due to my impending nuptials. While I am away, any admin can reverse any of my non-AE or DS actions without talking to me first. I will be back for the start of ArbCom election questions. I think one of the coords is going to place my statement when nominations open, but if they don't anyone can add it to the page.

I have an open GA review. I will get to it as soon as I return. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, congrats! El_C 16:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

ACE2022
Hi Guerillero, as you requested, I have transcluded your nomination in WP:ACE2022 on your behalf. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith
Hello, Guerillero. I hope all is well with you. I'm writing to you about a user with whom I've been having issues over bad faith assumptions for some time. I have a great deal of respect for the user's work, so it saddens me greatly that I have no choice but to speak with an admin about this. The user has assumed bad faith in my edits in the past and recently, repeatedly accusing me of breaking Wikipedia policies. I spoke with them directly about this problem six months ago and got a disheartening response. I made the decision to leave it as it was back then, but their most recent edit summary made a similar charge (This looks like POV pushing to me.) and since I'm unlikely to receive a different response from what I got six months ago, I'm writing to you. What should I do, in your opinion? Thanks. — Golden  call me maybe? 14:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Golden: I just returned from my wedding and do not have the bandwidth to sort through this. You might take it to AE if you think there is an ongoing problem -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your wedding! I'll try to talk to another admin about this first because I don't want to report the user; I just need advice on what to do. Best wishes! — Golden  call me maybe? 14:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd like to congratulate you as well, and wish you the very best.--John Cline (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Gerda
Congratulations on your wedding! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gerda Arendt: Thank you! Here is a picture of the arch from the wedding. It was an unseasonably warm day of 74 F; the next day, the temperature dropped to a more normal 50 F. We then did our honeymoon in Hawaii. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 11:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * sounds and looks great, reminds me of the arch six years ago, and I just returned to the area - in my pictures from 8 to 14 Nov --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)