User talk:Kingsindian/Archive 3

Denial of the Holodomor is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE
EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just saying
I totally agree with you here. I think that starting and continuing long discussions on talk pages, RfC and AfD on petty subjects does not really help to improve anything. Who cares?. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I found this diff on your user page. One does not behave "like a saint" by reporting other users for 3RR violations they did not do or for creating new legitimate pages. But that's OK. I stop editing any pages that became a matter of contention because I do not care. This is losing chess game. My very best wishes (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The board deals with edit warring short of 3RR as well. Call me cynical but you only stopped when I used the board, while ignoring my repeated pleas beforehand. As to the diff, you have misread the sentence as you have misread Coplon and Young. You are free to continue or disengage on the page. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Marples article pdf
Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:



to fulfill your request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, email sent. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naomi Wolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, some help/advice?
Hello, hope you do not mindme approaching you..I have noted your commemts on the talk pageof anas al-tikriti. Another user raised some concerns on the NPOV noticeboard heading Islamic Charities, regarding several articles with pronounced POV pushing. I had a quick look at one article Islamic Help and saw what I considered to be OR,synthesis, coatracking, misrepresentation of sources, and maybe some unsuitable source meir amit terrorrism info centre? Have done a litle cleaning, but would appreciate a second look from an experienced eye (you) also at the other articles please. the post on NPOV had no responders. thanks 78.145.23.228 (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw the post on the NPOV noticeboard. I will take a look when I have the time, which might be a few days. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 09:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

... or farce
Thank you for the insight with this in the edit summary. I wrote "best remembered as a farce" about the so-called infobox-wars, and just archived it. I wrote that about a year ago, but some are still (almost tragically). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. This is not really relevant, but I rather dislike infoboxes in the area I work in often (WP:ARBPIA). They are magnets for POV pushers and vandals. I would guess that their use in music might not be that problematic, but I don't really know much about it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 22:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (pings don't work without a - new - signature, + Gerda is fine) - I didn't want to mention infoboxes (it's just what I know best), - I wanted to point how "farce" rang a bell. Same serious page: we might think more of what's good for the reader than our likes and dislikes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Naomi Wolf - Talk
I wasn't aware that the Talk page pops up on the watchlist. I'll try to refrain from tweaking it. I am one of those people who thinks precision of language (and facts) is important. I'll try to cure myself of this wiki-disease on Talk. For the articles, of course, precision is a virtue. Thanks. American In Brazil (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, the talk page appears separately from the article pages on the watchlist. You can control what you see by selecting from the drop down box called "namespace". You are of course correct that precision of language is important. I just find that on talk pages, it is not that important. Anyway, this is just a minor annoyance, nothing too serious. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Area C (West Bank) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=694730489 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F694730489%7CArea C (West Bank)%5D%5D Ask for help])

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding comments you have made in an above ANI thread in regards to, which are being directly mentioned by. The thread is Flyer22reborn personally atacking and calling editor "stalker," with no evidence. Thank you. Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Yuletide
Happy Yuletide! 

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Rhoark (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!


Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thanks, and same to you. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard


 * May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks and same to you. I listened to the music; though I didn't understand a word of it, and I never listen to classical music. Still, it was nice. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Project Xanadu page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=696879261 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F696879261%7CProject Xanadu%5D%5D Ask for help])

Mystery Wolff
Hi, I left a message on EdJhonston's page earlier asking him to warn him because he may not be aware being new and he did. I hope he takes Ed's advice and also removes the comment, but now that you have commented it may be better to hat it. AlbinoFerret 17:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting but
I don't think sensitivity to sexual abuse had anything to do with the Bad Dryer case. It was more to do with getting at a BLP, and incidentally making repeated innuendos that anyone, well myself, who tried to get the record straight was promoting pedophilia. The Uvda case, as appeared to close readers, fragile from the start (it has now, for the moment, collapsed), was jumped at by a block of 4 editors with the same POV in the context of, in Israel, measures in the Knesset designed to make human rights NGOs' work more difficult. The number of violations of our normal editing protocols, false readings of WP:BLP, WP:RS etc., used by the 4 to revert anything just one editor added was indicative of the worst in Wikipedia's I/P area. Even some experienced editors were using patently false edit summaries, and repeatedly distorting the sources, and when experienced editors do that, one knows that the last calculation is applying the rules: the point is to 'screw' the cornered editor. Further (I believe he is a sock, but can't prove it) Bad Dryer had an egregious record for 'getting at' people, as the Malik Shabazz case shows. He was warned even here, and repeated his adventitious innuendos even after his indeff, only pulling back with an offer to strike out his comments when he found no other option. That area does not need that sort of wolf-hunt mentality. And there is a limit to how much leniency one can extend to an, objectively, useless editor with a decided POV revert and attack approach, who almost never participates in a talk page discussion. I haven't pressed the fact that the same innuendo or hare was started by NMMGG, who is in a sense responsible for the adoption of that strategy of personal attack, but I don't see anything in BD's record which would cast a shadow over the decision taken (And I have a fairly high tolerance of nonsense).Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw the piling on on the Nawi talkpage just now. In this area every paraphrasing is looked at suspiciously for hidden ulterior motives. As a small contribution, I have made a suggestion there to try to find a compromise. I am not a fan of NMMNG or Brad Dyer's tactics, but unfortunately I think this is the nature of the area. The I/P area mixed with child abuse allegations is a mix which can ignite at the slightest spark. This is a delicate matter, using a hammer is not the best option, in my opinion. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A far better editor than I once said BD should go no where near that I/P area. I don't like bullying. I never call for help in these situations, and have often done what you do normatively, i.e., when there is the appearance of a POV majority not taking a second look at the minority view, even if most think it just POV-pushing, to re-examine it to see if some merit  can be detected. There are quite a few editors whom I disagree with invariably, but I  know they will respond to a reasonable argument because they can see a fair objection. This is sometimes the case with NMMGG, it is never the case with Plot Spoiler or Bad Dryer. They stack the vote, and delete or revert and disappear. It's just not good enough to have that kind of editor there.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Brad Dyer does not behave like Plot Spoiler. I rarely agree with his arguments but they usually have valid points and participate decently on the talkpage. See for instance, the discussion here, when I agreed with him and here when I disagreed. It is true that they rarely change their mind, but that is true for most people in political areas, unfortunately. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We disagree, as is not unusual, and that is a healthy sign. You reminded me that once or twice, BD did spent time, not reverting but arguing.  If you ever find a pattern of internal disagreement among the four editors I alluded to, you're a closer student of these matters than I. All my experience with all four is that they turn up to revert my edits mechanically, without collegial consideration. In an area like this, it should be obligatory to be willing to examine the evidence on its merits, and not, as egregiously there, simply to cite policy falsely (asand in the eyes gamesmanship) and then turn on the attack language: it was absolutely untenable to cite WP:BLP to exclude information having nothing to do with the person, but with a legal nicety both common language and the tabloid press being pressed into corroboration blatantly ignored to the detriment of the subject of the article. Still, thanks for the adversarial take on this. If one doesn't host the advocatus diaboli in one's mental rooming house, one should be hired for such occasions.  Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

DS alert
Kingsindian, please don't post that material again. Apparently I'm expected to warn you about the DS, so apologies for the template. SarahSV (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As someone who saw the material before it was revedelled, why are we not meant to quote the Washington post? What purpose is this actually meant to acheive? I'm fairly certain the Washington post gets far higher viewer numbers than some Wikipedia talk page. Furthmore it's the Washington Post, if you can't cite that what can you cite? What is the point of these BLP redactions. Brustopher (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Brustopher, WP:BLPTALK gives guidance on this. Discussions can link to RS without spelling out what the issue is. That discussion has already taken place, and a decision was made not to include the material (for obvious reasons). Indeed, it seems that the regular editors there agree on that point, which is encouraging. SarahSV (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not quote the redacted passage in my edit, so I am not sure what exactly you are saying. The passage was added by Mark Bernstein in this diff, which is still present in the history. Also, unfortunately, while reverting my edit wholesale, you also removed my broader point: how exactly is citing verbatim a Washington Post paragraph a BLP violation? Also, I see no consensus on the talk page about whether the redaction was correct or not. The discussion is primarily about whether to include it in the article. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been a decision not to include it. I can't stop you from reopening that discussion, but if you do, there's no need to spell out the issue. Editors there know what it is. See WP:BLPTALK: "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." But please consider letting it go. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that is a rather woolly guideline. According to BLP, the only time material may be removed without discussion is when there is contentious material which is poorly sourced or unsourced. This material is neither poorly sourced nor unsourced. Distasteful material is not the same as a BLP violation. In my opinion, the edit-warring over BLP is a much bigger issue on the Gamergate page than BLP itself. Due to past misbehaviour on the page, it has become the new normal to unilaterally redact any material which one doesn't like. I need to know how putting a passage verbatim from the Washington Post can be a BLP violation. Otherwise this redaction is improper. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 22:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you should interpret BLPTALK as you would want others to interpret it if you were the subject, a non-notable person whose real name has been attached to a damaging claim that has been life-changing and that may not be true. And proceed accordingly. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am in favour of not mentioning Rapp at all on the Gamergate page. However, that is not the issue. The passage in question is only debunking (or casting doubt on) the claim, not supporting it. The problem with unilateral redactions on the talk page is that the conversation becomes very hard to follow because the stuff which people are referring to is no longer there. And also people start bickering about whether the redaction was correct or not, instead of the topic. The disadvantages are too many and advantages are too little and dubious. If one can't even refer to the mainstream press on the talk page (not the article page), then the guideline makes no sense. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 23:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This tactic was employed early on in Gamergate. Content and links which by the standards applied to other talk pages were non-actionable were deemed “objectionable” and redacted. See the discussion here and here, Ryk72’s comments in particular. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers to past cases. However, those seem to be dealing with linking to (disputed) sources (and I don't really see a resolution either way in those discussions). Here the source is unimpeachable so that does not directly apply. The discussion is whether reproducing the source on the talk page is a BLP vio. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reopened the discussion on the talk page (without explicitly quoting the offending word - though I don't agree with the redaction). Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. ''This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page.'' For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Help
Hi Kingsindian, can you please give your opinion on the censorship issue on Talk:Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)? 2A02:C7D:3FDE:D400:34AC:583A:B24A:5AF3 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in the page. I will just give advice here. Clearly, you two aren't going to agree on the inclusion of the content. I suggest opening an RfC and asking for wider input. Also, please don't contact lots of people like you did out of the blue. See WP:CANVASS on how to notify appropriately. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom
I see you removed that section, but this Arbcom ruling already settled that discussion and involved Smallbones doing the same shit.--v/r - TP 06:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
 * 2) DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * 3) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
 * 4) For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
 * 5) Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
 * 6) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Need to move that RfC elsewhere
Please move that RfC off of ANI and onto a venue that handles RfCs (which ANI never does). It should be moved soon before the bot lists it. I suggest moving it to WP:VPP, for instance. Softlavender (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

ARC
Hi Kingsindian, that was a great statement at WP:ARC, with an excellent summary. Thanks for writing it! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am not sure if it would be useful: since ArbCom seems to be on the verge of accepting the case, which I don't think would be a good thing. But perhaps the summary can be independently useful even if the case is accepted. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration talk page. Comment
Hi Kingsindian,

The close wasnt a clerk action but the notice at the top of the page is what made me close the section. The notification reads that This page is for the discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including cloarification of the specifics of notices. As the request does not fall into this remit but is specifically a request for information froma specific editor this does not fall into the remit of the noticeboard talk page. Clerk actions on talk pages (by me) will specifically state as such. Amortias (T)(C) 16:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. However, I do not agree with that characterization: the request is directed at ArbCom - anyone can answer it; Doug Weller is named because he is an Arb and made the statement based on an email Gamaliel sent to ArbCom (one presumes). Technically, one could simply unarchive the original discussion of the case here and continue the discussion, but that would be simply a bureaucratic step, gaining nothing. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened
'' You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list. ''

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Pavel Florensky
You have a command of policy, and I'd like to avail myself of your advice. When one adds duly sourced information, with quality RS, to a page (here Pavel Florensky), and it is removed (b) and one addresses the objection (not significant in sources) by adding several other sources, all under academic imprint, and waits for responses that do not arrive on the talk page, I presume it is legitimate, given that there was only one objection, duly answered, to restore that information. Now an IP pops up, reverts the material out, with no ntalk page explanation, and the old reverter likewise insists WP:BRD applies, and that I should reargue this on the talk page in which neither he nor the IP has used since. BRS is not policy of course. What I want to know is, what forum should I address to have independent third party review of this silly removalism? Sorry to bother.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would ignore the IP: they aren't important. WP:BRD is indeed not policy, but WP:ONUS is policy: the responsibility to find consensus is of the person wishing to add content, which is you. The main content dispute is with . The fact that Florensky was anti-Semitic is not at issue, of course. From what I understand, Afterwriting is concerned that a section on anti-Semitism by itself would be WP:UNDUE. I am unfortunately wholly ignorant of Florensky, so I cannot judge the merits of the case: whether his anti-Semitism was egregious or common during his lifetime, and whether it affected his philosophy, or was it a major part of his life and so on. Since there are only two people discussing the matter, it's hard to break the impasse. A few approaches I suggest, in decreasing order of desirability:

Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Try to integrate the anti-Semitism content into an existing section and shorten it to reduce WP:UNDUEness. I have no idea where exactly this could be done, if it is even possible.
 * If you think the anti-Semitism part requires a separate section, you could:
 * Ask for a third opinion from a neutral party. I can add a request there if you wish.
 * Open an RfC to get more comments. I would keep it simple: just list the content at issue and ask people a yes/no question, on the model here. I can also open the RfC if you like.
 * Open a request at WP:DRN. Time consuming and probably overkill.
 * Thanks indeed. I wonder whether, (I am completely at sea in anything procedural, and stuff up even rfc templates) you could on my behalf, of neutrally, ask for a third opinion and put the RfC template there.I could list all the arguments in the world, but evidently if the reply by one person so far is, more or less, 'I disagree', then clearly third party input is required. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

My removal of the disputed content was not "silly" at all. It was done for valid policy reasons, especially WP:UNDUE. No evidence has been provided which clearly demonstrates that Florensky's anti-Semitism was so notable for a man of his time and cultural background that it should have a whole long section devoted to it. Afterwriting (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have submitted a request to the WP:3O page. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry for the disturbance of time best spent otherwise. Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail
- Strongjam (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a general point
I'm rather surprised, not at the objections, but the understanding generally of WP:SYNTH, which does not appear to be raised in the sense the policy defines it (drawing a conclusion not in any of the sources used). I remembered that the good article featured on wiki a few days ago had a similar thematic focus, namely Siege of Sidney Street. So I read it and checked a few of the background sources, and quite a few are used that do not mention any siege in Sidney street. e.g. of 5 examined, two fail.
 * Russell, Charles; Lewis, H S (1900). The Jew in London. A Study of Racial Character and Present-Day Conditions. London: T Fisher Unwin. (puibloished 11 years before the incident.
 * Cohen, Steve; Humphries, Beth; Mynott, Ed (2002). From Immigration Controls to Welfare Controls. London: Routledge. (mentions numbers of Jews immigrating to England by that time, but not the actual incident.

I went back to the Shakespeare Authorship Question which I co-authored with User:Tom Reedy because it went through stringent FA examination before being promoted. Well, there too, books that do not deal with the authorship question are cited on specialist issues. I.e.on Shakespeare's signatures 'All are written in secretary hand, a style of handwriting common to the era.'Dawson, Giles E.; Kennedy-Skipton, Laetitia (1966). Elizabethan Handwriting, 1500–1650, W. W. Norton p.9. etc.etc.

I don't mean this to reflect on the ongoing debate (the answer is (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but eventually some policy analysis should be given to the kind of issue raised here, because in lieu of more specific indications, the vagueness of guidelines is just productive of vexation to all concerned, and if applied as we are doing here, would mean far more stringent controls on articles than those in place. Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, there was really no SYNTH per se. The requirement for SYNTH is that one must not use two sources to conclude something which isn't present in either of them, which your passage didn't really. The only assumption being made in the passage as a whole was that all the different authors were talking about the same period. And we must paraphrase a bit to avoid copyright concerns and summarize the issue.


 * The real problem is that every paraphrase and every assumption in this area is treated as evidence of ulterior motives. All I tried to do in my rewrite of the prose is to reduce the paraphrasing and assumptions to the minimum possible - without engaging in plagiarism/copyvio -, though I suspect people can cavil about the latter too if given the chance. Also, in your prose, it wasn't clear what was being cited for which claim, so I tried to fix it. The grenades issue: I just thought it not worth fighting for; it's a trivial matter.


 * I agree that the policies, by and large, are too vague. This is not an accident: many, if not most of the policies were written by insiders to bump off certain people from conflicts. One can argue that their essential purpose is Wikilawyering, stymieing and banning opponents, and one wouldn't be too far from the mark. Luckily, most if not all policies have enough loopholes to basically allow anything which a real-world practitioner would do. So, it is generally good to not care about the exact wording of the policies.


 * Finally, it is not secret that a lot of Wikipedia articles wouldn't survive close examination based on Wikipedia policies. Sometimes the articles are defective, sometimes the policies are. The GA system does not really provide quality control. Essentially anything not completely nonsense, if footnoted, can be passed off as correct. (Come to think of it, not too different from academia). But, yes, your points are overall valid. It is my experience that GAs and FAs are mostly written by one or a few mostly like-minded people who trust each other to assume good faith. The "opponents" are either fishing in other ponds or were topic-banned or otherwise removed from the conflict. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think your edit needed justification at all, and I basically agree it is a fair compromise. I didn't know how the wiki rules were developed, interesting. I don't quite agree with the parallel with academia, though it is true that the humanities suffered a huge negative impact from 'theory' as it ran amuck in the 1970s, and many of those who rose in the ranks, incompetent wafflers with little historical knowledge, now run graduate studies. I do a fair bit of manuscript analysis and comment for friends in a number of fields, who then have to go through a formal, and quite exacting mill of close grinding criticism by informed experts, and at least in these areas, the old combing of text vs source is still wielded effectively (unlike the POV-driven nitpicking here). Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Denial of the Holodomor
Hi, how goes it! To be honest, I was about to !vote "no" for retaining the Coplon content when I noticed the J. Arch Getty changes. As you'd be aware by now, I can get pig-headed about content as a matter of principle, which is (of course) a load of old cobblers for the purposes of Wikipedia, so it's probably only a matter of hours before I change my !vote.

What really does have me concerned is this/this/this user. I know you've advised him/her to rename, but I'm finding it very difficult to AGF the various accounts along with who knows how many other sleeper accounts and IP accounts used. The temperament and behaviour of the user as evidenced by their edit summaries and discussions is... well, shall we say 'relentlessly pushy'? I have my moments, but with close to 30k of edits to my credit, my pushy side only emerges from time to time, and I try to keep it in check. All I know is that I have a feeling that I've encountered this editor before. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If both the editors are the same, they have upwards of 1k edits on Wikipedia. That is a fairly long contribution history (for instance, when I jumped into the Israel-Palestine area in 2014, I had fewer than 200 edits). I am not familiar with socks in the WP:ARBEE area - so I cannot comment on the likelihood. In any case, the attitude I take with socks in the Israel-Palestine area is to treat them as a Devil's advocate. Sometimes they make good points. In this case, the edits simply reminded me of an RfC which I had planned to open anyway. See the discussion I had with MVBW. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have no problem with the user if they do combine the two prominent accounts officially, plus note the articles they've worked on as an IP (with no need to give away the IP address as that's an unnecessary giveaway of where they're from). There's just something about a couple of talk pages entirely filled up with tl,dr communications with no one but themselves. It reminds me of someone. Oh, well, never mind. If it comes to me, it'll come to me. The user is consistent and follows up on their research, so as long as they let their editing history be known, the more editors on board the merrier.\


 * Personally, I don't get terribly concerned about evaders as their arguments follow the same lines and are easily refuted. The only time socks concern me is when they are aggressive evaders who attack and abuse others for their opinions, creating an environment so hostile that other potential new editors are put off editing. I encounter socks regularly. I don't say anything, despite knowing their tells from the outset as long as they're generating discussion that assists in improving content. We're never going to eradicate socking. It's learning how to work with it that we all have to get our own grip on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow Iryna, how many editors have you expressed these "concerns" to?Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

policy advice on WP:IMPARTIAL
Perhaps you could give some policy advice regarding the dispute over the use of "heated" language here: Talk:The Black Book of Communism. What's being debated is the passage from historian Peter Kenez' review of the book, which you can look at it the corresponding WP article: The Black Book of Communism (just search Kenez to get the quote). One applicable policy cited by an editor who wants to tone down Kenez' critique is that WP:IMPARTIAL requires us to remove certain heated words from his passage, namely: "can be a careless historian" and "ridiculous". I think he may have a point regarding the inclusion of "can be a careless historian". However, this is not something I've seen invoked before, and seems like pov-pushing and selective censorship in the context of the dispute (if you look at the talk page and edit history, you will an incredible amount of blatant pov-pushing and tag-teaming). Would this mean that harsh but notable/academic negative commentary on any content in any controversial book violates WP:IMPARTIAL it's "heated"? In the context of the article, does WP:IMPARTIAL mean notable criticism from Kenez is too "heated", while glowing but glowing yet notable positive commentary from say Martin Scammell is OK? Are there any other policies to consider here (WP:BESTSOURCES etc.)? I don't want you to take sides in the dispute, but would appreciate any advice. ThanksGuccisamsclub (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia is the ultimate postmodern institution. Policies can be interpreted to mean whatever you like, and paraphrasing Richard Rorty, "truth is whatever you can get your colleagues to believe". In this case, WP:IMPARTIAL is too vague to offer much guidance. If it is possible to summarize Kenez's argument without using "ridiculous" it would be fine, but to me it's a non-issue. The only reason I would agree to do it is to avoid endless edit-warring over trivial matters. It is, of course, not permissible to alter a direct quote. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael Hardy is reminded that:
 * 2) Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
 * 3) All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
 * 4) Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
 * 5) MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
 * 6) The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration Enforcement request closed
An Arbitration Enforcement case in which you participated has been closed with the following result:

"All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)"

Take it to Arbcom
The Zaostao case is not the first time these admins have abused their tools to expel people whose politics they disagree with and it won't be the last. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The initial block was bad, but it was endorsed later. So I don't see any point in taking it to ArbCom. The fault lies with the "community" and the way it handles disputes. My view on the best way forward is given on Zaostao's talkpage. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, although the bottom 3 on the ANI endorsing block all reverted Zaostao at one point or another and Irondome's impartiality is questionable on this, but and especially  endorsing the block probably means it's against Zaostao on this—still think it's a bit strange Zaostao was blocked without a chance to reply for something that doesn't violate a specific policy. Regardless, thanks for giving a fair hearing on ANI, hopefully there'll be someone to pay it forward to you in the future. 199.71.232.194 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC) (The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.)

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Yo Ho Ho


Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Thanks, and same to you. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Kingsindian: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller  talk 15:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
 * Thanks, and same to you. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Vipul matter
Hi Kingsindian. You didn't weigh in at the ANI on Vipul's paid editing enterprise. I would be interested to hear your response to my OP and the recommendations there (see here) and any other thoughts you have about what (if anything) the community should do with regard to this. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

5.f3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_Indian_Defence#S.C3.A4misch_Variation:_5.f3

Let's play some chess (I'm 2200 USCF) Ethanbas (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot about this, and I'm rather busy for the next week or so. I don't really play the King's Indian Defence; it is too sharp and has too much theory. I prefer the Nimzo Indian or Queen's Gambit Declined, usually. Of course, there's a Saemisch variation in the Nimzo Indian as well :P Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Community Blocks
I'm not sure why you think there is a difference between a block imposed by a single admin or a block imposed by the community when it comes to unblocking. Maybe the admin should be a bit more careful and make sure to read the full discussion when unblocking a community block. Also if the community has considered an unblock and decided that the person should not be unblocked, then they can be considered banned (which must be appealed). Can you explain any other difference in terms of policy as to why an admin needs to return to AN to unblock? -Obsidi (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For a block carried out by an admin unilaterally, one can request an unblock at any time, and a single admin can review the block and unblock if they feel it's appropriate. Of course, it's good practice to still consult (or at least inform) the blocking admin, but it's not necessary. Community blocks/bannings are an expression of community consensus; the blocking admin merely carries out the community consensus. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that is true, but I don't think that answers the question. The community blocked the person (just like an admin could potentially block the person). Being blocked doesn't preclude the person from being unblocked (with an appropriate appeal). Why can't a single admin unblock them? I haven't seen anything in policy that suggests otherwise and many things that suggest that this is the case. -Obsidi (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A block is not a ban, but a community indef is virtually the same as a C-ban. See WP:UNBAN. Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or, where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure, to the Arbitration Committee. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a "community indef is virtually the same as a C-ban." I agree if the community decides to site ban them, then that cannot be removed but by the community. But an indef block is only a considered a de facto ban if "no administrator is willing to unblock." The moment an admin is willing to unblock they are not de facto banned. There is nothing in any policy that I can find that makes a community imposed indef block any different than any admin indef blocking the person. At least under current policy as far as I can find. Although there is one exception under WP:CBAN, if there is a consensus to (1) indefinite block and (2) "reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor." Then they are considered banned by the community. Merely an indef block isn't enough. -Obsidi (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's possible that you may be right or not, but I don't have any interest in parsing the text of Wikipedia policies. WP policies are not legal documents. Everyone involved understands that it is a bad idea to reverse community-imposed sanctions without any discussion or even notification. Whether it was allowed by policy or not, it wasn't a wise action. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, now that we can agree on. -Obsidi (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

SS block
It was not his first edit I think he had already gained ECP status be then so he made 500 edits or so.--Shrike (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. I still don't see how it was abusive. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's another matter I only think that you should correct you own statement as it incorrect.But that of course your call.--Shrike (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've struck out the portion on their talkpage. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)