User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2023/August

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Triple Self-Portrait at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step III of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

- LTA?
I was looking over at the block list and I saw that you blocked and  as socks of Miner Editor. Miner Editor apparently claimed to have been editing since "2 years after Wikipedia's founding" here and stated that said alt was banned due to incivility. I think that given the statement there it is plausable that this is some sort of LTA issue and that perhaps Miner Editor's antivandal work was designed to obscure some sort of LTA socking/POV pushing. Any thoughts? — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 01:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, and given that soapboxing he posted on his talk page I think that TPA revocation may be needed here as well. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 01:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of LTAs. Unless you can match the account, it isn't worth the effort -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

ARBEE topic ban violation (again)
Mikola22 outright violated their WP:ARBEE topic ban on August 18 with this edit to Operation Halyard. See ARBCOM's decision. I have ignored this user's earlier borderline topic ban violations. Others have taken notice of at least one of them, but no action was taken. This last one is pretty brazen and blatant. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I blocked them -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by
Good day, I'll try to keep this short and on point. I chose to write to you directly. This all new to me, so if I made some sort of mistake or posted in a wrong venue, please help, it would be very much appreciated.

I've been editing productively since 2008 and I've managed to stay out of trouble for most of the time. This was the first topic ban for me in my long editing history. I respected the restrictions to the fullest and almost 2 and a half years have passed since. Additionally, I had no unconstructive editing of any sort on EW and also, I didn't have any sort of problems with editors holding a different view on any topic whatsoever. All in all, I had a good chunk of time to think about my particular actions. As it often happens in life, we would all, from a new perspective and after observing the situation from a distance, act differently. Such is the case with a significant part of my changes. There are no right or wrong narratives here, but Wikipedia policies. I see that certain things should have been done differently, including but not limited to: more frequent, persistent, and better use of the talk page, giving yourself a limit of only reverting once, making an extra effort to understand the other party's perspective, using mediation more often our hard-working editors as a third party to resolve content misunderstandings and the like, as well as putting more focus on literature from countries or dialects outside of mine. When you primarily manage an area full of controversies and various minefields for years and years, challenges inevitably arise. Even more so if one has a personal connection to a topic or two. However, the question is how we respond to the challenges, there is a key difference. If I have the opportunity, I would like to edit again, but I would put in the foreground the fields of culture, art, popular culture and others, instead of political issues. During the period when I was not editing an area I temporarily had no editing rights for, I refocused on other areas and tried to keep Wikipedia up to date and tidy, in areas from Pyongyang, their airlines, to lesser known North American actors. I also worked on project maintenance, setting up and checking already posted templates. I archived the talk pages, which in some cases were started almost 20 years ago. With that, I tried to make a small contribution to make Wikipedia more orderly and organized. I also actively edited another language project, Wikipedia in Serbian, where I have over 91 thousand edits, 120 thousand patrolled edits and have never been blocked in close to 15 years. I've also worked on Commons and WikiData, where I have a lot of edits and have never had any violations. My volunteer contribution, which is a grain in the sand of the big project we are working on, aside, I think I could cover certain topics that are not covered now and show that it can be done better and differently. As in life, I accept full responsibility and of course the consequences for my previous actions, but at the same time I hope for the possibility of a new perspective of my further participation. Best. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  16:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sadko:You have been violating your topic ban the whole time. Eastern Europe means Eastern Europe. That being said, you have been out of trouble since 2021 and your statement hits all of the right notes. I am mildly considering suspending the topic ban for 6 months. What would you edit about if there wasn't a topic ban? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Good day, thank you for your reply and thoroughness. Maybe it's the Eurocentric in me or the fact that I finished my education a long time ago; we were taught that the term Eastern Europe refers to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. It's not any cleverness on my part, but I honestly thought that these were articles about the countries and peoples of Central Europe and the Caucasus region, that is, Asia. I'm certainly sorry about that. I hope I understood your question well. Basically, I would like to create articles as much as my commitments would allow it, I don't have time like I did before. Some time ago, a list of the most cited professors of the University in Belgrade was published. Up to five people from the uni. account for most of the citations in the scientific literature in the world and its position in a number of international rankings, and I would like them to get their articles. I would also like to edit the Serbia article, which is too long, contains many photos, certain old data, etc. I would like to give my opinion on other articles or talk pages, if I see that the topic is familiar to me or I can offer a certain new reference. In my potential further editing, if I think that a move is too bold, I would consult with other editors and would be happy to tag you, as rarely as possible, of course, for an advisory opinion, if you agree. Thank you. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sadko: After thinking some more, I would like you to show me that you can avoid Eastern Europe and the Balkans for 6 months. If you have a question about if a country is part of Eastern Europe, please ask before editing. After 6 months of clean editing, I would be willing to lift the topic ban on a provisional basis. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Deal. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  10:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadko, you have breached your topic ban zillions of times. The only reason why I did not report you was that I was interested to see how you would try to appeal the topic ban after continuously violating it. It seems that you are trying to say here that you did not know that those Eastern European articles were part of your tb. Even if one accepts that, you know very well that you are not allowed to edit Serb-related stuff and you acknowledge that above by asking the admin to allow you to edit Serb-related stuff (you got topic banned for pro-Serb POV pushing; I am happy to be corrected by the admin). However, you have continuously edited Serb-related stuff. Some examples are and I can bring more diffs if need be. IMHO, breaching your topic ban on a regular basis and coming here to ask for its removal is not a good look. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I said above. One of the diffs that the admin cited as examples of your tb breaches concerns the Serb-nationalist Chetniks. Your disruptive editing on Chetniks was part of the evidence that made you topic banned. Breaching the tb so openly and trying to claim that your edit concerning the Chetniks it is not related to Serbia is a real cause of concern about whether you have really reflected on your mistakes or are just trying to be deceptive. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the "cuteness" of Sadko suggesting they didn't know Yugoslavia was covered by the Eastern Europe arb case and the violations while they have been TBANNED, as the editor and admin who reported Sadko's prior behaviour that resulted in the TBAN, if the TBAN is lifted I strongly recommend he be kept clear of anything remotely political or historical including but not limited to basically all of 20th century Yugoslavia including Serbia and Serbs. Otherwise I fear we will end up in exactly the same place. Editing extensively without incident on Serbian WP means nothing, almost every time I look at a corresponding sr WP article to an article here on en WP it is full of unsourced codswallop, especially anything political or historical, including articles about historians, politicians and political scientists. It is not anywhere near as bad as hr WP (which is terrible), but it is not good by any measure, and certainly not in the areas that Sadko was editing before his TBAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I will keep this in mind in 6 months -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)