User talk:Mikewem

Strongly disagree. The language in the article I removed goes directly against

WP:NPOV

I view your edit as disruptive. Mikewem (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not remove "by a religious group", I removed "by this specific religious group". "By a religious group" is still there because that statement is NPOV. "By this and specifically this religious group" was removed because that statement is not NPOV

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liturgy No mention of any specific religion in the definition here Mikewem (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Zionism. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did and do assume good faith. You are now making baseless accusations on my talk page. Mikewem (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking: this edit summary speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the

administrators

have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable
  policies and guidelines
  ;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from
  gaming the system
  .

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem this is why your recent posts have been removed from Talk:Israel. Remsense ‥ 论 20:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you give a little more explanation of why you deleted my correctly formatted edit request?

Before I take this to AN, ScottishFinnishRadish tagging you here because you’ve been very helpful with this exact issue previously Mikewem (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit overzealous, since I was under the impression it was unfair to editors who cannot participate in the consensus building process to tell them "you needed consensus for this change". If that makes sense. Apologies! Remsense ‥ 论 20:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, please self revert, thanks Mikewem (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did so. Remsense ‥ 论 20:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another crisis averted. Thanks, everyone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an emerging crisis involving a certain user boldly bypassing an rfc and then going on to misstate the content of the rfc in their edit summaries. If you happen to be in the mood for a crisis lol. Mikewem (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's something you'd have to be extended-confirmed to discuss if it involves ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikewem! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep edit requests simple, change X to Y, sourced as necessary. No lengthy explanations, justifications, etc and avoid section headings such as "Controversial, unsourced statement in lead; invites accusations of antisemitic bias", "Edit Request" is sufficient. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was as concise as I could've possibly been. Please do not delete edit requests in the future. I changed the title for the sake of civility, though I maintain the title was civil and conformed to WP guidelines. Mikewem (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you persist with reverting (so far, 3 different editors), I will ask that you be blocked from editing. Use the template if you are having problems. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, can you clarify here, please. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:Zionism) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have the other editors who engaged in edit warring also been blocked? Mikewem (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) For what it's worth, I don't agree that your comment should have been wholesale removed. It needed to be a lot clearer and more concise for it to stand a chance of being actioned, but it was not disruptive in itself. Nonetheless, repeatedly restoring it against multiple other editors was disruptive and this block was necessary to stop that. Please take the 24 hours to draft an actionable edit request. Maybe familiarise yourself with a less controversial area of Wikipedia first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy to engage with whatever area of Wikipedia I would like. Thank you for confirming your view that the deletions were vandalism. The other editors appeared to be working together, which is a violation of WP policy.

Please focus your blocks on vandals in the future. Mikewem (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, if the comment should not have been wholesale removed, then it would not fall under the ECR exemption for edit warring, so I'm interested in if you think this was edit request enough to be acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish In my opinion, the request stood no chance of being accepted but removing it, although in good faith, was unnecessary and needlessly escalated the situation. Words of advice on how to formulate an actionable request was all that was required. But once multiple people got involved we end up in a situation where everyone reverts because someone else reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If my understanding is correct, the question isn't whether the request would have been acted upon, but whether it was in the correct format. Was it in the correct format? Mikewem (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have been acted upon and it wasn't in the correct format. You would have known that if you spent more time reading

WP:ERSAMPLE (all three mentioned in the edit summaries) and less time edit warring and casting aspersions (accusing good faith editors of vandalism). M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

An admin has already confirmed by edit request conformed to all those guidelines, thank you for restating them. Mikewem (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill blocked me even though the vandalism page he cited defines talk page vandalism vandalism as:

Illegitimately removing or editing other users' comments, especially in closed discussions, or adding offensive comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.

WP:TPV

People illegitimately removed my TP comment, according to this that makes them vandals. And I got perm blocked for saying I was reverting vandalism? Mikewem (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mikewem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the edits I reverted were vandalism Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You do not appear to understand what

WP:PIA, as demonstrated by both this request and successive comments on this page. Upgrading to indefinite block pending demonstration of an understanding of the relevant rules as disruption seems clear to continue per responses like Special:Diff/1254162828 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for reverting your comment on the

I'm new to dealing with the notice boards (I haven't heard good things, wish me luck lol). I admit that my comment may not be perfectly in the absolutely correct format and I appreciate that you are on the lookout for users misusing the boards.

Thank you for your contributions. Mikewem (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mikewem (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the

administrators' noticeboard. I’ve been indefinitely blocked (more than 24 hours now) for a first violation of 3RR. I made a good faith edit request on a contentious topic talk page in the correct format. Selfstudier began an edit war over it. I reverted their first deletion of my edit request. They claimed they didn’t like the subject line and gave a suggested subject title. I changed it to that suggestion and then they deleted it additional times. I reverted those additional times. I fully acknowledge that once Selfstudier started deleting me even after I compromised with them, I should have gone to AN instead of edit warring. If something like this happens again, I will go to AN after the first revert. Mikewem (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Accept reason:

Per discussion below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No justification given to indefinitely block. I did not engage in battleground and I did not disrupt PIA. I intend to refer this action to arbitration. Mikewem (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've spoken with

WP:ECR enforcement vandalism and edit warring is disruptive. There was a lot of subpar behavior in this situation, but it was greatly exacerbated by your edit warring and aggression. Simply holding off on the edit warring and seeking clarification would have avoided all of this. I suggest you think on this for a while, take some time to regain a level head about the situation, and then decide how you want to proceed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

From my perspective, there’s a lot to unpack here. I acknowledge and understand that doing so could come across as litigious, especially from an editor with few edits. I understand that an overly litigious WP is not in anyone’s interest and should be avoided wherever possible. Ultimately, yes, I am more interested in improving WP than standing on principle.

The edit request compromise for CT is what it is. I don’t know that anyone is calling it a perfect system, and I’m sure it must introduce some amount of extra work for over-worked admins.

I have read through and understand the cited guidelines. If you’re willing, could you give any feedback on whether my current understanding of the incident is off?:

I submitted a good faith edit request. It was immediately deleted. I was allowed to revert that one deletion because if someone deletes your good faith talk page comment, you are allowed to revert them. (Do I have that right?) Then someone else deleted it because they said they didn’t like the title. So I reverted them and changed the title. When they deleted me again after I compromised, I stopped assuming good faith from that one editor at that point. Regardless, was that the point to go to admin? Is the expectation to behave as if you assume good faith even when bad faith is being displayed (from one’s own perspective)? I understand that repeated reversions don’t help WP and get people feeling defensive.

Do you have any insight on this: when the editor deleted me because they said they didn’t like the title, if instead of reverting them, I simply made a new post with exactly the same body but a subject of “edit request”, would that choice have been viewed as more or less aggressive than reverting and changing the title?

I understand that edit requests are expected to be short. For clarity, are they allowed to include brief justification and evidence from sources? Are they more or less likely to be deleted if there is no justification or explanation whatsoever? Mikewem (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The

WP:ECR

edit request only system is the best of bad options for how to deal with the disruption and sockpuppetry in the topic area. Like you say, it is what it is, and if there were a better option that someone had thought of we'd likely be dealing with the fallout of that.

I think the biggest issue is that once you're in the "ECR loop" it becomes less likely that immediate adjustments will lead to anyone actually treating your request as valid. It's not great, but again, it is what it is. Editors in the topic area that work to enforce ECR revert literally thousands of ECR violations. It's a similar problem to new changes patrollers reverting and warning IPs for good faith, if not suitable, edits. When you're reviewing 95% dross it gets easy to see everything as dross. That's not a good reason, but again, it is what it is, and it's common in pretty much all patrolling/enforcement.

Secondly, edit requests have to be clear and actionable. At 402 words and three actual requests it's hitting the threshold of not clear and actionable. Keeping things short and separate is much more effective. Also, leave out personal commentary and focus on sources. For example:

“The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv, with little Zionist resources being deployed in support of European Jews.”

~The source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. The elephant on the room here is the phrase “Zionist resources.” A reasonable observer could interpret that phrase to mean “Jewish money.” That gets into un-encyclopedic territory that is unfit for Wikipedia. Because the source makes no mention whatsoever of “resources”, I think this sentence should be changed to:

”The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv.”

works much better as

In paragraph X, section Y the source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. Because the source makes no mention whatsoever of “resources”, I think this sentence should be changed to:

−

The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv, with little Zionist resources being deployed in support of European Jews.

+

The Zionist war effort focused on the survival and development of the Yishuv.

That cuts the text of the explanation in half, leaves out personal commentary that verges a bit into

WP:NOTAFORUM

, and plainly displays the change. Doing that for each individual request, preferably with some time between to address the earlier request, makes your requests clearly constructive and easy to see and implement.

As far as reverting, technically, yes, you can. However, editors that are enforcing

WP:ECR

are not constrained by the bright-line edit warring rules, and although this case is a murky since as it was noted above the request stood no chance of being accepted and edit requests are required to be constructive to meet the ECR threshold, the reverts of your request were not unreasonable. Also, yes, you should be assuming good faith even when you're seeing behavior you think isn't acceptable. Assume, for instance, that the editors reverting you have reverted hundreds or thousands of violations of ECR, and know from experience what edit requests are constructive enough to have a chance, and are worth editor time in reviewing.

Yes, should should have gone to an admin, or AN, or some other venue to seek clarification on why you were being reverted and if it was acceptable rather than reverting over and over. As far as changing the title or creating a new section, changing the title was fine, but as I explained above there were further issues with the request as written. I think the last point is the justification and evidence. That should be included, yes. But you want to keep it as concise as possible, and with as little A reasonable observer could interpret that phrase to mean “Jewish money.” That gets into un-encyclopedic territory that is unfit for Wikipedia. as possible. A much better justification is the source makes no mention whatsoever of the amount of resources deployed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable to present an edit request with 2 options?:

“I suggest change X to Y

OR

Add source needed tag to X”

or would that be seen as overly presumptive?

Would the flow go something more like: I present request for X to Y, then it gets denied, then I present request to add source needed to X in a separate request? Mikewem (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, btw Mikewem (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could include two options, as long as it remains clear and concise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I feel good if you feel good. Unless there’s something else to go over? Mikewem (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully ScottishFinnishRadish is fine with me offering a minor interjection here. To offer a perspective of a fairly uninvolved editor, if you'd used the standard edit request template, and I'd seen your request (which was unlikely since I hardly ever edit in the topic area and don't go looking for requests), I probably would have marked your request as answered and said something like 'not done, way too much for an edit request and it doesn't seem like all of your requests are even the sort of clear cut issues edit requests are meant for'.

It would have been better to start simple with perhaps the clearest problem. If that was successful, I don't think any editor would have minded you asking for something else if it was another reasonable request. If it was denied, then I guess it wasn't as clear cut was you thought and you'd have to consider whether any of your other suggestions were likely to be the same.

I feel what I said is similar to what SFR has said, but I bring up to because of another key point. While I'm not sure I would have personally deleted even the edit request you left, I think you're thinking the deletion is way more of a deal than it is. While leaving an edit request on the talk page would mean any other editor allowed into the A-I topic area can see it and decide actually some of it can be dealt with, or alternatively start a discussion on some of the issues you brought up; I'm pretty sure that in reality once edit requests are denied, it's rare much comes of them. I think some of them are even archived quickly e.g. within a few days which is perfectly allowed. In other words, while editors probably shouldn't be deleting reasonable edit requests instead just answering them either by effecting them or rejecting them, I expected rarely much difference between deleting one and answering but rejecting it.

Edit requests on ECR pages are sort of a unique situation since while normally the editor making an edit request could challenge the rejection or otherwise try to start a wider discussion over their proposed changes to get consensus, this isn't something that a non EC editor can do on ECR pages.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first message on your user page is that in your opinion there may be a major widespread admin corp issue on WP. Mikewem (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need a clear, unequivocal statement that demonstrates familiarity with our policies and guidelines and an understanding of how your editing was disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help to have some examples of non-Arab/Israel conflict material you plan on editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the unequivocal statement already. Now you’re adding on extra requirements and hoops to jump through.

Editors shouldn’t be deleting edit requests. If none of them were sanctioned but I was, then we’ll have to go to arbitration. Mikewem (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that the other editor involved said they will no longer enforce ECR on their talk page. I support that decision from that one editor. Mikewem (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, I do not want to go to arbitration and I think it is still avoidable. Do you consider the Liturgy page to be within the Arab/Israel conflict? Specifically my edits there, would you define those as non-A/I material? Mikewem (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish @Rosguill checking in on the status of my block.

I am familiar with the policies and guidelines and I understand that repeated reverts are disruptive. If someone deletes an edit request from me again, I will go to AN to seek clarification. Thanks for your commitment to WP. Mikewem (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing replies like I gave the unequivocal statement already. Now you’re adding on extra requirements and hoops to jump through. Editors shouldn’t be deleting edit requests. If none of them were sanctioned but I was, then we’ll have to go to arbitration. doesn't inspire a ton of confidence.

WP:NOTTHEM

mixed in.

Your edits at liturgy did not violate

WP:ECR, although edit summaries calling other edits disruptive aren't great. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The specific presentation of the point about what I can add to WP (from GAB) caught me off guard, but under the circumstances I can see why you asked it the way you did, and I can see how my response did not inspire confidence. It seems to be that there are some users who exclusively edit in A/I or other contentious topics. I agree that exclusively editing in CT can in and of itself be a battleground behavior, and will inevitably lead to a battleground mentality. I do not intend to exclusively engage with CT.

I use WP mostly for pop culture and science. I have a decent eye for grammar, readability, and sourcing. I use the Oxford comma but it’s not a hill I would switch around an entire article for. If an article primarily doesn’t use the serial comma, I would happily remove one or two occurrences of an Oxford in order to conform to the majority of the article. I use American spelling, but I’m acquainted with British spelling and I would be comfortable adjusting a given word either way in order to have it better conform to the whole article. If material is unsourced, I would be more interested in finding a source that supports it and then adding that as a citation than I would be inclined to just outright remove it. If it’s easily demonstrable that the source and the wider literature on the topic does not support the unsourced material, then I would be comfortable with the decision to remove it. If a nuanced and cited rewrite of the unsourced material better serves the totality of the article, then I would offer a nuanced and cited rewrite.

Yes, I do intend to present my qualm with the sourcing of the line about resources in the Zionism article again, but I can see how waiting until I get EC before I present it again would be beneficial to my goal of having the lead be sourced. I don’t expect to like every single word in Zionism, but I do expect the lead to be sourced, and I think I can help with that in some limited ways. I do believe that the specific point about the sourcing of the resources line is within the bounds of what an ECR edit request is intended to cover, but I can see how the point would be better received if it came from an EC user. Mikewem (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, what do you think? I know you said this can be treated as a normal unblock, but I'd like to hear if you think this, with the above understanding of edit warring and ECR, is sufficient? I'm willing to unblock at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that seems reasonable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikewem! The thread you created at the Teahouse, When to cleave vs when to carve, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both talk) 03:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply ]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see

]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Mikewem! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Reopen an answered edit request?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both talk) 03:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply ]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from

wp:extended confirmed

. Gaming this will be considered a violation of the topic ban.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Valereee (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikewem! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Definition of "all editors" for RM discussions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both talk) 03:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply ]

I have not visited the page as I have got no time, is there anything possible conclusion that came there? I see that there is lot of distraction from main topic. Wh67890 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That page is extended confirmed protected. See the alert on your talk page for an explanation. I’m actually going to go through and strike all comments from editors who are not extended confirmed in order to adhere to our policies, and to make the job easier for the admin who will close the request. “Close” means that someone will read the whole thread and the invoked policies, and judge the outcome based on the strength of each argument.

That being said, experienced editors have made very strong arguments in opposition. Wikipedia has protected that page from those who would wish it harm for 20 years, and there’s no reason to think that will stop now. If, for any reason, the request passed, it will immediately be appealed on the grounds of

WP:EXPLICIT, which states that move requests that affect multiply page titles must list all the page titles in the original move request, which did not happen here. Mikewem (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Mike, when you strike comments, its usually helpful to add some sort of in text explainer, either a comment linking to the appropriate policy, or a italic smalltext comment after each strike (probably overkill here, but better for smaller deletions). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did immediately realize that I neglected to link arbecr in my edit summary and was wondering how that would go. I think it would be reasonable for me to self revert, then self revert again to restore the strikes, but add

WP:ARBECR to the summary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mikewem (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Or, do you mean just a reply to the thread saying “I struck comments from non-ec users per ARBECR”. I like that idea, I’ll do that right now Mikewem (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, strike means strike through. The comments will still appear, but they will have a line through them. Your arguments were invoked multiple times by ec editors who agreed with your reasoning to oppose the move. If the closing admin would like to read your arguments that ec editors agreed (or disagreed) with, they will be able to. Mikewem (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Wh67890 (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my own understanding, what policy allows you to strike non-EC comments from the talk page? I couldn't find where our policies say that non-EC editors shouldn't participate in talk page discussions on contentious topics. Thanks! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR

A.1.

“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. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.”

Only means only. And comments on RMs are not “edit requests”

Now it is true that RMs can be considered to technically be a type of edit request, but per

Holocaust. Mikewem (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

I am asking @Mikewem you to stop making mess in my talk page without any considerable reason. Wh67890 (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor is allowed to comment on any thread in any user talk page. Talk page owners have full autonomy over what happens on their own talk page

WP:OWNTALK. Anne Drew was polite, asked a relevant question, and I was happy to answer it. Talk pages belong to the user whose talk page it is. This one is mine. Mikewem (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Makes sense! Thanks for clarifying. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your efforts on 2025 Boulder fire attack. We have been handling some emotionally challenging material these past few days and I hope you are keeping well. HussainHx (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't an edit conflict between me and him. There's just multiple editors attempting to change the article at the same time. If there was an accidental reversion I profusely am sorry. GayCommunist1917 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war means that you have re-inserted material that someone else removed. You appear to be engaged in edit warring over the anti-abortion content. If you continue with this, you may lose editing privileges. If you think it should be in the article, start a Talk topic on it. Mikewem (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Do you mind temporarily de-archiving the talk page thread about early life over at 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators? I would like to suggest to the editor that they make an account and also explain that this article is not a biography of Boelter. If not, that's fine. Have a great day! EllieDellie (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think writing that on the editor's own talk page is a great idea!

I do struggle with weighing whether to enforce protection on ctop talk pages vs using it as a learning opportunity to inform and educate IP users. Mikewem (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can try creating a talk page for the editor, but in my experience it appears that IP editors tend not to be notified of such things. Worth a shot, at least. EllieDellie (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While on the topic of archiving threads on that particular talk page, this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators&diff=prev&oldid=1295911094

was completely unjustified. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going over your recent edits because of what happened at

However, I came across this edit of yours. From my reading of it, you told another user that if you had to gathered diffs of their edits to prove that they were edit warring, that it would be used to get them temporarily banned. Can you clarify and explain why you said this to another user? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said it because the user was continually re-inserting material covered by 3 contentions topics without consensus or source, and then the user denied that they were edit warring.

The denial seemed to be a momentary conflation of a "conflicting edit" with an "edit war". Both edit conflict and edit war had recently occurred.

If they refused to acknowledge that they were edit-warring, I was going to go through and collect diffs. Having done that work already, and bearing in mind that we’re dealing with a sensitive claim in a breaking news story covered by multiple ctops, yes, I probably would’ve been inclined to take those diffs to ANI if the user continued to refuse to acknowledge that they were re-inserting contested claims. I can’t know how that ANI report would end, but I was echoing language in the standard edit war warning notice that says you will likely be blocked from editing. Mikewem (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]