Please click here to add a new message!

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Archives [megabytes]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that involves you, regarding an appeal to remove a topic ban and 0RR restriction. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal to remove topic ban on politics and 0RR restriction. Thank you. Bcmh (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you for the notification, Bcmh. I have no strong opinion about this, but it doesn't look as if the appeal will be successful. The low number of edits during the topic ban seems to be the main argument against lifting the ban at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, I hope you're well. I am not sure if this is the right place to be doing this, but would it be possible for you to look over this short report thread [5] on the ANI and potentially action it based on your opinion? The user in question was already reported previously, but that report was sadly auto-archived [6] and by the looks of it, the current report will also be auto-archived. I don't quite understand why no one has looked at it or taken any action, especially when multiple editors from different topic backgrounds seem to take serious issue with the behaviour of the editor in question.

Again, I am not sure if this is the right place to do it, but you've shown yourself to be a capable and fair admin in the interactions I've had with you in the past, and I would hate to see this report go under the radar. The subject of this report really needs to be dealt with according to Wikipedia policies. Much appreciated! Botushali (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Botushali, thank you very much for the kind feedback, which is an honor as our interactions include a (partial) block. I've had a look and think that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS applies, so it seems reasonable to require an unblock request the addresses the concerns that have been silently ignored after the initial incivility. The low frequency of Frenchprotector29's editing probably helped them to avoid blocks before. I have now also replied at ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, thank you very much. I really do appreciate it.

I also want to draw your attention to AzorzaI, the user who shared a partial block with me on Battle of Kosovo. It hasn’t been long since our partial block expired on said article, but an RfC has resulted in the removal of certain commanders, which is fair enough. However, AzorzaI has now extended it to the removal of certain elements from the Belligerents section, which has been the focus of our previous edit warring that earned us the partial block months ago.

The RfC result said nothing about the Belligerents section of the infobox, only the Commanders section. Yet, AzorzaI has gone ahead and removed the belligerents in question [7] even though there is no consensus for such a change. They have made a TP discussion [8], although I don’t know why they’ve proceeded with such an edit when it’s been the centre of much edit warring on said article in the past. They’ve made a claim that the participation of these belligerents is poorly sourced, even though there are 12 WP:RS academic sources (at the least) supporting their participation. This is the same exact content that we have edit warred for months over prior to our block.

Basically, the reason I am writing to you about this is because I really want to avoid another block over the same issues as before, and I do not want to be trapped in the same cyclical discussions as I was previously. Normally, I would RV and participate in the same never-ending discussion on the TP, but I want to avoid that behaviour, as it’s the reason I received a block. How would you advise I proceed? Sorry for bothering you with the matter. Botushali (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali, I initiated the RfC, which ultimately led to the exclusion of the leaders you had vigorously defended for months on the TP. Their exclusion was based on their violation of the guidelines I've consistently highlighted in all our previous discussions. Still, you're not dropping the stick over the infobox, and much like you did previously with the now-removed leaders, are arguing for "twelve RS supporting your standpoint". Moreover, a review of the edit history reveals that these leaders and their respective belligerents were added correspondingly and they were both included with no previous consensus among editors.

Instead of seizing this opportunity to learn from the RfC and collaboratively improve the infobox, you've chosen to escalate the matter to admin attention. It's disappointing, as I had hoped the RfC discussions on the exact same breaches of Wikipedia guidelines would offer valuable insights to everyone, including both of us. This is precisely why I saw no need to initiate a new RfC; doing so would only expend drain energy and time for everyone involved. However, if you still remain so confident in your position, why not take the initiative to start a new RfC, as I have already done? --Azor (talk). 07:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn’t have to initiate an RfC for something that’s stood on the article for many months now, no matter how much you edit warred over it.

You’re missing the point - regardless of how the last RfC concluded, that doesn’t mean that you can now make changes which you have not established consensus for. You’re not interested in collaboratively improve the infobox… because you made the move without seeking consensus. In fact, you must’ve expected a negative reaction from me ahead of time, hence why you’ve followed me to ToBeFree’s TP without being tagged in it.

… arguing for "twelve RS supporting your standpoint"… That’s right - 12 reliable sources included in the article should have bearing on said article. I don’t see the issue with supporting something that is backed by a dozen reliable sources.

I asked ToBeFree for advice because I do not wish to engage in edit wars and pointless, unending conversations on the same content that I have previously been blocked for in the past. It’s not my fault you want to go back to that. There’s no reason for you to be disappointed that I am asking an admin for advice on how to approach the situation, and there is also no reason for you to stalk my edits and check my activity. Botushali (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The timeframe of the content is not relevant. You're not entitled to not bring up a RfC simply because previous edit warring succeeded in placing them at the infobox. Their inclusion still raises several major concerns:

1. The leaders and their respective belligerents were added simultaneously, likely due to their associations.
2. They both were added withot consensus or support of overall RS (as explained in the RfC)
3. They violate the exact same Wikipedia guidelines on Infobox.

The last two points are the reason why their leaders were removed from the infobox. Should you be correct about the relevance of including the belligerents in the infobox, despite the absence of their leaders, a RfC will let them remain - and this time with consensus. This is the same process I had to follow when discussing the placement of leaders in the infobox with you, which only caused further edit warring, forcing me to open up an RfC. --Azor (talk). 09:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, this whole paragraph is a load of nonsense. The RfC was about the commanders, not belligerents. I don’t want to engage in discussion with you anymore, I’d prefer to await ToBeFree’s opinion… Botushali (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali, administrators don't have authority over article content; they deal with behavior. When there is an edit war, the need for discussion becomes clear, so discussing instead of reverting is generally a commendable approach. A discussion seems to have been started at Talk:Battle of Kosovo § Belligerents (permalink), and it should probably continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but it’s the behaviour that’s concerning. It’s the same exact behaviour that resulted in both of us receiving a partial block - edit warring over the same content without consensus for their changes. That’s ok - next time, I’ll revert and then proceed with the discussion. Botushali (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botushali, one single revert may be helpful (WP:BRD), if the same content really hasn't been discussed or reverted before, and if you are not reverting a revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just want to make sure I don’t get blocked again. Botushali (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]