User talk:Levivich: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:29, 18 November 2019

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Making the news?

Please see [1]. It's about a man. I have very little idea what's going on here, but you seem to be at least tangentially involved. Any comment for The Signpost? Just drop a few words onto my talk page or send me an email. You might even write that humor column I suggested a while ago about this. Any comment appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, my involvement is that I uploaded the picture. But I'll email you some details later, I think there's a pretty good story behind how that picture got onto that article. – Levivich 16:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...but why?

I dont see any point in notifying experienced users about discretionary sanction, especially not for such a broad topic like BLPs. May I know what prompted you to notify him? —usernamekiran(talk) 17:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kiran, of course you may! It was this ANI thread. – Levivich 17:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It's a sad state of affairs when you feel everybody would be better off if I wasn't seen thanking you for defending evidence-based board behaviour. I don't want to end up getting myself or you in trouble after all. That fear is part of the wiki-way. Sartre, in a book I've never really fully understood, called it the "fraternity terror" of the fused group. The Maoists probably would have the digestion machine be perpetual. Surely, there's a simpler way^tm. Thanks for standing up for facts. Again. I know I'm not the only one you've done it for, but I'm embarrassed to have been such a needy ca(u)se. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Sashi; no need to be embarassed. (But it would make it a lot easier if you went out of your way to be nicer to the admins. This is one of those "kill them with kindness" situations.) – Levivich 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal guideline workshop

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 21:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all por~~ Sorry, that's kind of become an involuntary reaction. Thanks for the invite, Scottywong, I signed up. – Levivich 22:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, I'm not considered a power user after all this time... RIP (talk page stalker) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification ToThAc. What's your inclusion criteria for parties? – Levivich 21:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would just be users who have frequently commented on portal deletion discussions in general, and are at least fairly familiar with the locus of the problem. ToThAc (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ToThAc, I certainly meet that criteria, but I think you're missing a number of other editors who also meet that criteria (I'd suggest even more so than me). (Some of the missing people, for example, have already commented on the Arbcom case.) I hate to name names but I'd ask you to review the list of editors who have edited Portal:Transport (the most-recent, most-contentious discussion) [2] as well as editors who have been invited to the portal guideline workshop. Anyone who's on both lists (I am) should probably get an invite to this party. – Levivich 21:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm kinda adding parties as I go at this point. Don't worry, I'll eventually try to add in as many as possible. ToThAc (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding parties as you go. Oy vey. E Eng 22:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I know it's sort of a slippery slope, but even I was unaware of the true scope of users involved up until now. ToThAc (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ToThAc, I'd be careful about pulling in too many parties. A focused approach on the worst offenders and the most involved people is likely to get much faster and drama-free resolution than casting a net that takes in every experienced editor that has touched a portal discussion. This case will already be super contentious, please try to not make it worse. But also, kudos to opening a case, someone had to do it sooner or later, things were getting out of hand :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the workload involved in naming a couple dozen parties to an Arbcom case. Also, no one would take it upon themselves to do all this unless they really, really thought it would help solve the problem.

Also also, I think for the second year in a row, we have an Arbcom candidate who is also a party to an Arbcom case during the election. I wonder how often that happens.

Also also also, the parties outnumber the arbitrators 3:1. 2:1 if you count the clerks. I think we should storm the keep and free all the sanctioned pages and editors. – Levivich 22:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Live stream of parties being added: [3] E Eng 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 ::::::::Also also, I think for the second year in a row, we have an Arbcom candidate who is also a party to an Arbcom case during the election. I wonder how often that happens.
 ::::::::Also also also, the parties outnumber the arbitrators 3:1. 2:1 if you count the clerks. I think we should storm the keep and free all the sanctioned pages and editors. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 22:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
+*Live stream of parties being added: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-M2hs3sXGo#t=2m29s] [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)