User talk:MrDemeanour

Welcome!

Orval Faubus
Dear MrDemeanour (aka Drmies),

Regarding this content: As a child, Faubus had a father who explained that "capitalism was a fraud and that both poor whites and blacks were its victims." This was likely the catalyst to his radical left-wing ideas.

You are opposed to the word "left-wing" and so you removed the entire content? Let's discuss:' Faubus was a Democrat: left wing. Segregation was radical back in Faubus' day.

He resisted integration: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Orval-Eugene-Faubus

Would it be more agreeable to remove the word "radical" or are you saying he was not a leftist? Please clarify. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @SDSU-Prepper: I have copied your comment to the article talk-page, which is the proper place for discussing improvements to the article, and I have replied there. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey--sorry, but what you just said, you can't say that. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry! Consider it unsaid (oh look - it has been unsaid). MrDemeanour (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Victoria cross reversal
'Rare' is the wrong word when 1358 awards have been awarded and more than 10% of these awards have been bought by one person. The statement ‘Owing to its rarity, the VC is highly prized …’ is inaccurate. The VC is not highly prized because of its rarity but because it is the highest British award which captured the imagination of the public in the second half of the 19th century and that esteem has continued to this day. I suggest that sale prices have increased because of the esteem for the award and because many are already in institutions rather than the rarity of the medal. I would appreciate it if you would restore my edit. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @User:Anthony Staunton The fact that more than 10% of the medals are in the hands of a single person has no bearing on the rarity of the medal. suppose there were just one VC ever? a single buyer could buy all 100% of them by acquiring one medal. How would that make it not rare?


 * To show that the medal is not rare, you need to produce references showing that other awards for extreme gallantry have been issued in smaller numbers. E.g. Chevalier du Legion d'Honeur: 74,384. Congressional Medal of Honor: 3,520. Note that the entire armed forces of the British Empire were originally eligible for the award, making it not comparable with e.g. the closest Dutch equivalent: Order of William, 5876. The requirements for a VC are extremely demanding, and awards have become much rarer as the years have passed.


 * An award that only certain groups or classes are eligible for doesn't count. For example, medals that only animals can win, or that only senior officers can win. The VC can be won by any member of any service.


 * I can't claim that the VC is the rarest medal for gallantry; I don't know. But it is certainly rare, no doubt because of the stringent restrictions on it's conferral. Of course it is also famous for other reasons, such as the proportion of men who have died winning it. I look forward to being informed by your references. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Over a thousand is not rare, neither is over 400 George Cross awards, over 200 Naval Conspicuous Gallantry Medals, just over 100 Conspicuous Gallantry Medals (Flying) or less than 100 Albert Medals in Gold. However, I am not arguing the definition of the word rare ‘If an object is rare, there aren't many of its kind’ but the claim that ‘Owing to its rarity, the VC is highly prized’. I would hope most would agree ‘the VC is highly prized’ but I dispute the suggestion that the main, indeed the only reason, for that esteem is that there are just 1358 awards. ‘The requirements for a VC are extremely demanding, and awards have become much rarer as the years have passed’ is a better reason for it being highly prized. The VC has become rarer in recent years but again this is not the only reason for its continued high esteem. BTW I do not think the total number of Chevalier du Legion d'Honeur recipients is 74,384 but much higher and if WW2 British Commonwealth or US veterans who receive them think they are equivalent to the VC or the MofH, I am not going to disabuse these veterans. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @Anthony Staunton You have mentioned the George Cross (only animals are eligible), Naval CG medal (only matelots, and not including the Merchant Navy), Flying CG medal (only airmen, and there were relatively few of those). These are all restricted eligibility classes. The VC was awarded to any warrior of any class, from anywhere in the British Empire (originally). Hundreds of millions of people were eligible. Given that context, the tiny number of awards makes it exceptionally rare.


 * Please provide citations for the greater rarity of awards with similar eligibility. Without citations your opinion is just an opinion, and it is contested. Uncited contested content is generally eligible for deletion. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Typo?
"superceded" or "superseded"?. Qexigator (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I would have said 'superceded'; the version without 'c' looks wrong to me. But I defer to OED's etymological derivation of the spelling (My 7th edition Concise Oxford concurs). MrDemeanour (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes
Would you consider having a look at Disappearance of Charlene Downes? All the obsession with white/non-white in the article sounds like dog-whistling to me but I'd appreciate someone with editing experience taking a glance at it. 116.113.0.172 (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/116.113.0.172 I read the article. I see no 'obsession' with white/non-white; that the suspected perps were non-white is cited to a Times article.


 * I don't know if you are from the UK; your IP address suggests you are in China. You should know that there has been a number of very high-profile criminal cases here, involving the systematic abuse of (mainly) white girls by gangs of 'non-white' (nearly always Muslim) men. These cases have resulted in convictions and heavy sentences.


 * The perps in these cases are often referred to as 'Asian', but the abuse gangs have included men from Somalia and from the Middle East. They seem to have been dominated by Pakistanis. Many commentators have suggested that these cases are the result of a view promulgated by some Muslim authorities that white girls are fair game, because they do not observe proper (i.e. Muslim) standards of modesty, exposing their skin, and failing to cover their heads.


 * In light of this recent history of convictions for systematic abuse (including two major cases in my own home-town), you might take the view that referring to the perps as 'non-white' is rather mild; I would have gone looking for sources that confirmed that the perps were in fact Muslims.


 * Hope this helps. MrDemeanour (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Casino
You removed my work stating "29,000 characters on OH? The article is about casinos, not about alcohol or second-hand smoke." All of my work deals with casino workers, the health risks that are more common in casino workers in general, and also by common positions working in a casino. The second-hand smoke is all specifically related to casinos and also does not deal with alcohol, but rather alcoholism, which is more common in casino workers. How do we move forward on this? HarvardOcDoc (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)HarvardOcDoc


 * HarvardOcDoc In my edit summary, I suggested to you that the way forward was to revise your addition so that it was more in proportion with the rest of the article - I used the word 'summarise'. I don't object to your subject matter, just to the fact that it is given WP:UNDUE weight, given that the article is not primarily about the health risks of working in casinos.


 * BTW We are discussing improvements to the article; the proper place for such discussions is on the article talk page, not my personal talk page. I don't like moving other editors' remarks from my userspace to article talk pages without their consent, and I haven't done it on this occasion, mainly because I expect this exchange to be quite brief. Feel free to hoist this material into the article talk page yourself, if you think other editors might want to participate in this discussion.


 * I hope this helps. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the more detailed feedback and this will be my last post on your user talk section. The information posted was a summary. Many of the conditions cited were evaluated in 40-50 page reports that I tried to condense down to a few key points. I posted here as this is where the "talk" option took me in response to the history section, I've now opened a discussion under the topic. Also, my understanding of the "undue" wikipedia standard is for undue sources or not presenting appropriately balanced information. I believe my sources back up all statements made. Thanks for the help in making this wiki post better. Feel free to delete this conversation if you no longer want it on your personal page. HarvardOcDoc (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well done on ; i'd've got there, but it would have been later rather than sooner. I hope someone, maybe, feels like developing the new potential article. Happy days, LindsayHello 13:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Over at Grateful Dead....
...HardSunBadMoon has copied the entire article, including refs and all the category stuff at the bottom in a HSBM Sandbox. I presume that is for intention of revising the article and replacing existing with the revision. I suggest putting a watch on this, although I fully expect that many editors watch the GD article, and it will be a race to who can revert first. Speaking of a race, the Sock puppet nomination I made has not yet been processed, but there is a possibility that HSBM will be blocked before being able to execute an article dump. Looks like the string of sock puppet accounts goes back further than I had originally suspected. David notMD (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * David notMD The article is on my watchlist, and has been for a long time.
 * Copying the entire article is fine - he said he wanted to do major edits, and I said he should do it in his sandbox. I'd sooner revert one or two dumps, than a thousand in-place edits.
 * Nice work spotting the sockishness, I haven't looked for your report; any chance of a link? MrDemeanour (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/157.43.83.254 HardSun got into edit wars at Maroon 5, and was calling for the other editors to be blocked. If in truth the same person, worse behavior as Chandra Shekher Mishra  I'll be out of office for a while. Curious how this settles out. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * HardSun confessed to being a sock on 12/25, blocked. Investigation continues to see if other socks or sleeper accounts. As Chandra Shekher Mishra, this person had multiple accounts back in September, so definitely a persistent repeat offender. David notMD (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI thread
See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Just notifying you as a formality (they tried to ping you but it didn't work, and anyway a talk page notice is required), but nothing is really going to come of the thread. Looks like you got a little confused there at Talk:Douma chemical attack, might be worth a note to User:Darouet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Floquenbeam I didn't get confused, I perpetrated a mouseo (I clicked before the page-load Javascript had finished executing, and clicked the wrong link). I self-reverted, and then clicked the correct link to undo the edit to another user's comment.


 * At least, that's what I think I did. Is that consistent with your observations? Do you think any further action is needed on my part? MrDemeanour (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Please look again; they did not make any changes to another user's comments, they made changes to their own. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You may still want to go to the user's talk page and apologize for your error. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Doo-wop
Very intersting, no such thing as Doo-wop. Then I don't know what genre of music I listened to in the late 1950's. Oh, wait a minute let me see what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about that. I don't know, maybe Time-Life Magazine has something say. According to the Smithsonion Institute Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers sang doo-wop under the streetlight on the corner of 165th and Amsterdam.. Take care and Happy Holidays. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Tony the Marine Read the diff again. I said there is no such thing as _a_ Doo-Wop. WTF is a Doo-Wop? Can you pick one up? Is it possible to lose one? How many Doo-Wops can you get for a dollar? Can you have a whole sackful of Doo-Wops? Is the number of Doo-Wops in the universe finite, or infinite? MrDemeanour (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Very funny considering that Doo-wop is a musical genre. I think your "WTF" is out of order here since we're having a civil interaction. But then again, I guess the same goes for Jazz and the Blues. can you pick one up? Is it possible to lose one? How many Jazz and the Blues can you get for a dollar? Can you have a whole sackful of Jazz and the Blues? Is the number of Jazz and the Blues in the universe finite, or infinite? However the fact remains that Jazz and the Blues are musical genres. It has been nice interacting with you. Take care my friend. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was you that started with the sarcasm, not me. There's no such thing as a jazz or a blues. And if you're a bit touchy about 'WTF', maybe you're too sensitive to have an internet connection; I'd expect a marine to have a thicker skin. MrDemeanour (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Candida blankii
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion Candida blankii from deletion to WP:DYK. You made it all possible.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glass of water


The article Glass of water has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced article with little or no encyclopedic content."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 15:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Vajrayana
Hi MrDemeanour, I agree with you, and edited accordingly. I was referring to the schools not the yanas. I think that the section probably needs a mention about the position of Vajrayana within the Schools of Buddhism. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge.a.alfaro (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft review request
Hello, I see that you’ve contributed to the Email Marketing article and that you also have experience running email servers. I recently created an article on behalf of the email company SparkPost (Draft:SparkPost) and put it through the AfC process. It was rejected, but I’ve now made substantial changes to it. Since you are likely more familiar with the subject than the original reviewer, I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look and provide some feedback on the article, and also let me know your opinion on SparkPost’s notability in general. There are analogous articles for companies like MailChimp and SendGrid, and I’ve tried to match their tone where possible. Thanks and any help would be appreciated. SBCornelius (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @SBCornelius: Thanks for asking me to review your draft. I have read it a couple of times.
 * I have not heard of SparkPost, but that doesn't mean they are un-notable. As you note, I used to run mailservers; but I am very old-school, and in general I tend to view commercial email services such as MailChimp with considerable suspicion. I dislike the practice of sending out bulk commercial email. I do not regard that as the real purpose of email.
 * I am not doing a formal review. I hope my remarks here are helpful.
 * The content of the draft doesn't seem to be particularly technical, with the exception of the part about verification. You are right: SMTP verification (VRFY) is not permitted by most mailserver admins. It consumes bandwidth and processing power, and was once heavily used for listwashing by spammers. Mailserver admins tend to be concerned primarily with (a) deliverability of mail sent by their own users; and (b) keeping their own users' inboxes as free of spam as possible. Helping mail service providers avoid blacklists by providing VRFY support is very low on their list of priorities.
 * The draft doesn't to me read like promo material. The sources are generally OK, as far as I can see (I haven't checked more than a couple of them, but they are not predominantly links to the company website).
 * I lean to the view that there are way too many WP articles about companies, but that's just me.
 * I think the draft is fine, and would have no objection to someone creating the article as it stands. If I came across that article in the course of general browsing, there is no change I would make, nor any tag that I would want to add. It's not an article that would interest me very much.
 * Feel free to refer other editors to these remarks, if you think that would be useful.
 * I used to create articles myself; I'm not familiar with the AfC process, I used to just create articles without asking anyone's permission. Nowadays I mainly just copy-edit articles as I come across them, delete nonsense and WP:OR, and revert spam.
 * I hope this helps. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. I've updated the article based on your feedback and resubmitted it with a link on the talk page pointing here. Thanks again. SBCornelius (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring
You are continually removing text with vague edit summaries. Your latest is this - yet again leaving claims in the article without any supporting reference. This is damaging. If you have some preferred wording maybe try and, you know, actually help improve the article rather than continually mashing the revert key? Alexbrn (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reverted one fragment of text, twice (including the references). You restored it once, with no changes, but adding a source that directly contradicts your claim. My second edit summary was not vague; if anything it was over-long. My first edit-summary was short; but a glance at the diff would have made it quite clear why I was reverting.
 * The fragment says: "Anti-vaccination activists cite ADE as a reason to avoid vaccination against COVID-19, but such claims are not supported by evidence."
 * The problem is this: neither of your sources supports the contention that "Anti-vaccination activists" are relying on ADE. On the contrary, one of your sources explicitly says that concerns about ADE are "reasonable". That implies that a reasonable person might have such concerns; so your focus on activists amounts to pushing a POV.
 * I should not have removed the sources; I didn't notice that other claims in the article rely on one or more of them.
 * Your sources (both the same science journal) apppears to be a WP:RS, although it seems to me to be on a bit of a debunking crusade. The problem is just that it doesn't support your claim. The requirement for claims to be properly sourced is important; otherwise editors could write any kind of nonsense, and readers would have no way of knowing whether the claims had reliable support.
 * You seem to have done a fair bit of work on the article (for which, thanks!). I do not think any of your edits have been in bad faith. I suspect you just don't see that your prose reads like an attack on anti-vaccers. In principle that would be OK, but must be clearly supported by your sources.
 * I don't see how your text can be rewritten so that it is both consistent with your sources, and adds something useful to the article; neither of your sources is primarily about anti-vaccers. Neither supports your contention that doubts about ADE resulting from vaccination are "unsupported by the evidence". One says that such concerns are "reasonable".
 * I see you have restored the dubious claims again. You have removed the word "falsely", and inserted "unsupported by the evidence". That is a distinction without a difference. It is still an attack on anti-vacc ideas, relying on sources that don't support that attack.
 * This matters because concerns about ADE are not "fringe". The argument that these concerns have not been supported by evidence from clinical trials is sophistry; none of the clinical trials have been conducted in the usual way. They have been rushed, and indeed are effectively still ongoing, even while the vaccines are being deployed.
 * So I'm going to revert your edit *again*. Please get consensus on the Talk page before restoring this material again. This time I will move the sources you cited to the references section before reverting.
 * For the sake of clarity, I am not an anti-vaccer; I am not a conspiracy theorist; I don't have a point-of-view on the risks of ADE from COVID vaccines. I am just a vulnerable old man, an editor of long standing, who arrived at this article, saw the strong claim, and decided to check the sources.
 * Thanks! MrDemeanour (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

GMT
References 3 and 4 in the article say that it is a time zone. If you can manage to squeeze historic and current usages into the 40 characters permitted by WP: HOWTOSD, please do. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Certificate as a verb
Please consult a dictionary before making statements such as "You can't 'certificate' something" and "Again, 'certificate' is not a verb." "Certificate" has been used as a verb in English for over 200 years, which is more than 100 years older than either of us, and closer to 150 for me. See here for an example from reputable English dictionary. In the context of a type certificate issued by a government, "certificated" is entirely correct. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is evidence for this usage. But isn't it just better English to use the perfectly-good verb "certified", rather than the strangled "certificated"? If they don't mean the same thing, then educate me: what's the difference?

MrDemeanour (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Douglas Traherne Harding Comment
Mike Heron chose this title to show that he had been influenced by both Douglas Harding and the metaphysical poet Thomas Traherne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABehrens (talk • contribs) 19:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @ABehrens: Thank you. I have since learned that.
 * I know nothing of Traherne, but I looked into The Headless Way in about 1980. It was on the bookshelf in the library/bookshop at the London Buddhist Society, who I think were also the publishers. It's - um - a wee bit kooky. I thought so then, and I think so now.
 * But it's a brilliant song. Songs don't have to make sense!
 * [Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIpfWORQWhU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIpfWORQWhU] MrDemeanour (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Kaffir is a racial slur
It is highly offensive to dark-skinned South Africans and can get you in jail in South Africa. ZippyComb (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
TrangaBellam (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have not shown any interest in articles on Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. Cite, please.
 * MrDemeanour (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Popups edits
Just reverted 4 of your edits that you may be unaware of. It looks like you are using popups and it somehow sent those 4 pages back to much earlier versions (like 2014/2016)! You might want to check out whatever glitch caused that. Pretty clear from your edit history that this was just a glitch. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * I used the "Revert" function of Twinkle. Perhaps I was using it incorrectly. It looks like it did indeed revert way more stuff than the edit I targeted! 2014?
 * The edits I reverted were apparently all vandalism; I came across an obvious vandal edit by the IP editor, checked his edit history, and saw only edits that were vandalism or ignorance. I didn't trawl through the whole history, but I was surprised that obvious crap edits had survived.
 * I'm not going to try to re-do those reverts; it's not an article I care about much. I was just bumbling around, saw some damage, and tried to fix it. I'd appreciate it if you could look at the edits I reverted, and revert them properly!
 * Thanks again, for sweeping up my shit after me. Perhaps I should reconsider using Twinkle to revert.
 * MrDemeanour (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, no problem. I will look at that now. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:41, 28 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on Boiling Point (2021 film)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Boiling Point (2021 film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are 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:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20MrDemeanour&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1178722493 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boiling_Point_(2021_film)&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1178722493%7CBoiling%20Point%20(2021%20film)%5D%5D Ask for help])

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ARBECR
Please read WP:ARBECR, extracting the relevant parts and adding bold to make that easier:

When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions: The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.

No "gatekeeping" involved. See here for an example of how this policy is applied- Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Apparently WP:ARBECR was edited only yesterday, to disallow the posting of "constructive comments" to talk pages by non-extended-confirmed editors. I can't seem to find the edit to that page that made the change, so I don't know who made the change, or why. I strongly disagree with that policy change. Has it been discussed? Where? Can you help? MrDemeanour (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the most recent discussion Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @User:Selfstudier Thanks!


 * I was wrong: the change was made a month and a day ago, not a day ago.


 * I see that you participated in that discussion. It seems that these changes were made to mitigate "rampant socking". I think the rule-change is massive overreach for the declared purpose, but that aside: Is it your opinion that the editor in question was a sock, or has a record of socking? Otherwise, I think you've applied this new and over-broad rule in bad(-ish) faith.


 * I think it's rather important that the online encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit" should allow anyone to edit. I'm OK with non-confirmed editors not being allowed to directly edit protected pages in mainspace, and socks are simply not allowed anyway. The discussion you've linked to seems to have lasted just a few days, and not many editors participated. I think you should tread more softly, when you are wielding a brand-new rule that is so out-of-sync with the way most editors expect talk-space to work. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see from your response that you are not that familiar with WP processes. The rule is not brand new, only the clarifying amendment is. It does not take very long to "clarify" and it is confirmed by Arbcom, not just anybody. Not just socking either, the majority of these IP/non EC edits are just POV/nonsense/FORUMing and a waste of time for everyone. The one you are referring to is not untypical, a user making their first ever edit on WP at a CT page is a red flag as was the (POV) section title originally given. Nevertheless, the editor was given plenty of rope to begin with, an error on my part, which I will not repeat in future. Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not a bureaucrat, and I am not a politician; like the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, I avoid getting involved in Wikipedia bureaucracy. My unfamiliarity with the processes isn't something I take as a criticism.
 * "The rule is not brand new, only the clarifying amendment is."
 * That is a sophistical remark; the 'clarifying amendment' is a brand-new change in the rule.
 * You say the user was "making their first ever edit on WP", but that appears to be simply untrue. And your contribs list seems to show you making use of this new rule rather enthusiastically.
 * I'm going to try to get this rule-change undone, because I think the revised rule is wrong, and because even if it isn't wrong, I think it's much too vague, and subject to mistaken interpretations. Meanwhile, I ask you please to tread more softly. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see I am wasting my time here as well. Ttfn. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)