User talk:Levivich

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

• • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
  • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

See, I told you a little part of you was Polish, Mr. L. Polish by association, anyway. Some say there's a strength in numbers, some say Polish Power! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Killing of George Floyd

Regarding your edit here, your edit summary indicated it wasn't supported by the BBC source or any source. The content referenced in the cited BBC source is "Mr Lane, prosecutors said, "put his hands on Mr Floyd, and pulled him out of the car." Then Mr Floyd "actively resisted being handcuffed." Once handcuffed, though, Mr Floyd became compliant while Mr Lane explained he was being arrested for "passing counterfeit currency". Did you miss that in the BBC source, or did you have some other interpretation of it? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi AzureCitizen. Right, the BBC says that the prosecutor said that Floyd actively resisted. We can't say Floyd resisted based on that, in wikivoice. At most, we can say that "prosecutors said Floyd resisted", which is what we already say elsewhere in the article. (BTW, I think the amended complaint changes that, and I'm just about to update the article to reflect that change.) The other part, is "but after Lane explained to Floyd why he was being arrested, Floyd became compliant", which the BBC source doesn't say--it says he became compliant "once handcuffed", not after Lane explained why he was being arrested. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm, the BBC source doesn't just say he became compliant "once handcuffed," it says "Once handcuffed, though, Mr Floyd became compliant while Mr Lane explained he was being arrested for passing counterfeit currency". This means Floyd became compliant while Lane was explaining to him why he was being arrested (rather than before Lane starting explaining it to him). With regard to saying "prosecutors said Floyd resisted" elsewhere in the article, that content appears only once, and only in reference to Floyd resisting getting in the police car. Separate from refusing to get in the car, earlier in the timeline, when he was first removed from his own car, Floyd resisted being handcuffed. Hence, the information that Floyd resisted being handcuffed was removed from the article in the last few hours. If we want to attribute that to the prosecutor, that's fine, e.g., "prosecutors said Floyd actively resisted being handcuffed." Of course, if they've amended the complaint to contradict that, it would be an interesting development. Where is the amended complaint? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, Amended Complaint and here are some recent RSes discussing it [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Maybe we shouldn't use that BBC source anymore? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Went to bed for the night right after my last comment. Saw your link this morning and just read the amended complaint; while it doesn't contradict the original complaint, I see that they've removed the part about actively resisting being handcuffed. As a result, the new RS don't mention it either. It is apparent that he briefly resisted the handcuffing in the video, but I'm satisfied with just dropping it entirely now too. Thanks for discussing. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of NFCC

Time for an update?

This comment is perceptive. A note (completely off-topic for that discussion, hence here): it may be surprising in hindsight how much early policy was driven by the notion that people were going to burn Wikipedia on CDs and sell them for profit to schools and libraries, the way Encarta was distributed back then. (Or, like, print Wikipedia in books and send them to places without Internet access.) And so early policy was intended to protect the CD sellers from being sued by copyright holders. Jimbo's personal/ideological beliefs played a role too, I'm sure. I agree these policies are worth reexamining but they may be too entrenched at this point.

Apologies if this is old news to you. Wikiacc (¶) 01:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikiacc, thanks! I wasn't an editor then, but wasn't WP:VITAL originally about making a Wikipedia CD to compete with Encarta? I certainly think we'd benefit by re-examining the entire "free for any purpose" philosophy. "Free for any non-commercial purpose" should be the philosophy instead. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. WP:1.0 and its delightfully anachronistic logo are a related project (I think VITAL may have been an outgrowth of that, though I'm not sure). Wikiacc (¶) 02:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup that's what I was thinking of. The logo really is delightful. Kids today don't know what that is. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed they don't. I'll bet kids today don't know what a non-WP encyclopedia is, either. An addendum: I was perhaps speaking a bit loosely when referring to Jimbo. It's not just him; distaste for noncommercial licenses has a long history in the free software/content movement. See this 2012 Stallman essay for example. (Stallman raises a good point, though it's interesting that his proposed policy on CC licenses is laxer than WMF's current one.) Wikiacc (¶) 03:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiacc: Oh, I think you were on target. (h/t Iridescent) Thanks for the link to the Stallman piece, that was interesting. But it's sad that I don't think anything in CC 4.0 addressed the flaws he pointed out. And it's been eight years now. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That's quite a find. I had Objectivism more on the mind, though the ad does have a strong "Randian hero" ethos. Wikiacc (¶) 16:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are still True Believers in the Wikipedia 1.0 project about, who sincerely believe that the purpose of Wikipedia is to generate material for an offline project. It's a legacy of Wikipedia's history; you need to bear in mind that we developed as a feeder site to Nupedia, and the original intent was always that Wikipedia was just an incubator site where articles would be parked until ready to be published. In practice the focus on CD-ROM is dying out—"that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so" is considerably more likely to have access to an internet connection than she is to a CD-ROM reader—but the die-hards still cling to the "burning off copies of Wikipedia" fantasy; the current wheeze uses a Raspberry Pi, a cheap router, and a flash drive to create mini-hotspots where people within range can read a curated selection of articles via wi-fi. It's why we still have the pointless "importance" ratings, and why we have the full stub-start-C-B-GA-A-FA assessment scale rather than just "inadequate"/"adequate"/"good"; there's a tiny but vocal faction who believe it's necessary so we can select which articles are worthy of inclusion in Published Wikipedia when the day comes. (Some projects like WikiProject Visual Arts have called their bluff and abolished the importance ratings, and the world has yet to come to an end.) ‑ Iridescent 09:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd heard that quote before, but I didn't realize it was specifically about offline distribution. Your comment gives me visions of Christ himself returning to earth, holding blank CDs, the faithful standing at the ready with a curated Wikipedia and their CD burners... Wikiacc (¶) 16:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"He instructed them to take nothing for their journey except a staff and sandals CDs and internet-in-a-box." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh. I always thought (based on half-remembered discussions back in the Stone Age of Wikipedia) that the rating system was the result of many attempts to judge if articles were developing in a constructive manner, & which articles should be given priority for improvement. (Some systems were much more impractical than what we ended up with.) Only as time passed & everyone decided to scratch their itches -- whether or not these itches ought to be scratched publicly -- the rating system was mostly forgotten about, except for the highest classifications (viz., GA & FA) & a small, forgotten clique obsessed with arguing over which subjects are more important to human knowledge. (Sometimes I wonder if Wikipedia would benefit from an engaged leader or steering committee appointed to nudge this herd of cats in the general direction of an alleged promised land.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Citation bot

Thank you. I couldn't have said what you did without causing further upset and hardening attitudes, but I'm really glad you made that point so reasonably. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS, and you're welcome. I hope it takes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Line numbering

So per your edit summary I was going to revert, but I was prevented by

1. not being able to think of an appropriately amusing choice of template, and
2. the discovery that line numbers are very convenient!

Obviously, the point I am making is good lord I can't wait until I am able to socialize with my real-life friends in person again .... --JBL (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If you ever feel like choosing a battlebot in a game without frontiers, there's a war without tears on my Talk Page. Might as well mention RexxS while he was recently here. Seems to have certain interests in one of our presumably fine competitors, the mighty-but-calcifying Citation bot! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL, JBL. Hulk and I make very, very, VERY poor substitutes for real-life friends, but the bot battle might be fun, and I have no idea what to do with line 17, but your post led to the excellent suggestion of a Clowncom. So, yeah, lots of productive stuff happening on Wikipedia during the global crisis. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Punch

It was in the lede. And is relevant. Someone took it out. Can you restore it? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:E48F:2E4B:6149:D9A1 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You added "punch" to the lead, another editor took it out, per the WP:ONUS policy and WP:BRD guideline, the next step is to start a discussion on the article talk page, which I see you've already done at Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks#Add. It wouldn't be proper of me to bypass that discussion and the consensus process by restoring "punch" to the lead. We'll have to wait for editors to respond to your talk page post and see if there is consensus for putting "punch" in the lead. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

continuation

I think you mentioned you were going to continue the list at here. Could you possibly enable your email long enough to email me,? .. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

DGG, YGM. Let me know if it didn't go through. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

GMO subjects

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

Template:Z33 Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng reminds you to avoid ...

Casting of ass

persians

Technically you are "aware" from your AE involvement, but please be mindful that additional restrictions related to casting aspersions that came from the GMO case apply when you discuss such subjects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not worried about restrictions on casting aspersions, since the AN comment I made that precipitated this notice quoted you directly. As you know, I don't edit in the GMO area, and posting a DS template because I commented in an AN thread about your falsely asserting that another editor was topic banned from GMOs, is a misuse of the DS template, and yet another escalation on your part. I would advise de-escalation. This may well be headed to Arbcom. I would really advise de-escalation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the AN thread, please refrain from escalating and hounding editors through aspersions. Please don't project about escalation like that. Of course you're going to be called out when you make up things about what I said despite repeated clarification. At the time in question, I never said the editor was topic banned from GMOs, but that they had a ban due to behavior in a GMO DS subject. You're changing minute details and repeatedly making accusations with them. The actual quote was Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide DS from Jill Stein for six months, which they were in addition to AP DS if you read the actual AE. That I left out that AP DS also applied because it was superfluous to the current AE is normal because it was extraneous to documenting a sanction in a GMO subject. You should be well aware of that by now, and continuing to hound editors like that well after the fact is escalating, so simply don't do it.

As for the template, I suggest reading the case since it seems you missed the point based on what you wrote. We specifically crafted this principle for exactly what you are doing here. That covers two main issues. One is the "Monsanto shill gambit" that doesn't apply to what you're doing. What does apply though is the general casting aspersions of accusing of misbehavior without evidence (i.e., blatantly misrepresenting someone), repeatedly making those accusations (especially after clarification), and using that as a bludgeon. You've been doing all three, and that has been applied to admin boards on GMO behavior before. If you don't like being reminded that aspersions are not ok, that dosn't make it an abuse of the template. That's exactly what it was intended for. I'm of the mindset that sanctions usually shouldn't be needed to keep people from hounding or misrepresent editors, so that's why I'm here right now instead of AE.

This is also as much as I'm going to say on this talk page, but please reflect on your warning at ANI about battleground behavior. A normal non-battleground editor would not approach the AE case in question as you did. If they went on a tangent about the final sanction not being double-logged under both GMO and AP DS, they would simply read the linked case saying GMO DS did apply, or that people shouldn't use both DS applying as a red herring to pursue those bringing up the case. They'd also read the context of the second case and think, "That person listed the previous sanction because part of it was related to GMOs." What they wouldn't do is hound the editor repeatedly or claim they were falsifying the sanction because they didn't include every detail not relevant to the case at hand. Even if I had missed an important detail, that would have simply been corrected, and no one would really bring it up afterwords.

Even in a worst case scenario of basically not crossing a t, that would not have mattered for that case because the Jill Stein disruption still occurred in a GMO topic. What DS that first sanction was formally logged under had no bearing on the outcome of the second AE. No editor wouldn't reasonably continue to pursue someone for that. That's why I've been mentioning your behavior problems with red herring arguments on admin boards, and you are putting yourself on this ice by continuing to do that. Some people react poorly to guidance asking them to turn around from the brink taking it as a "threat", etc., but I hope in your case you think about some of this guidance and work on some of the issues you've been having in addition to the guidance you got at ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, as you know, a requirement to posting these notices is checking to see if the editor is already aware. Since you knew Lev was already aware, why did you leave this message anyways? Some consider that a form of harassment, and it’s why recently it was added to specifically check if the editor is already aware. Why not just accept you made false statements about Sashi, own up to it, and let it go? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Last post here, but that was a courtesy template since they were still casting aspersions. You're joining in too, and I can't lie and say I lied about Sashirolls as that would still violate WP:NPA policy. It's better to WP:AGF that even though Levivich joined in at an AE back in November, they may not have been aware of the aspersions principle even though they technically should have. Now they are, and it could have easily been considered pointy if I neglected to do this. If I had posted this template twice within a year per WP:AWARE, that is where the community views it as an issue. Trying to give a them a chance to turn things around and deescalate rather than bring them straight to AE shouldn't be considered a silly idea though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, you do realize that posting a DS notice when one is not required is a violation of ARBCOM rules and can get you sanctioned? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Please reread my above comment. From AWARE Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. The rule is that an editor does not receive a DS alert more than once a year, which I saw none of. Generally when someone is technically "aware" through a more tangential route like participating at AE, that doesn't preclude these alerts, and it's not uncommon for the relevant DS and case to not be fully read before that either. Given the discussions, I also had to assume they weren't aware of the restrictions from the case outside the little bit they saw at AE, so it's much better to post the formal neutral notification since it had never been posted here.

Sure, I could have run straight to AE to try to get them banned with just the AE awareness if I was sanction happy, but why do that when you can try to deescalate someone and just remind them there are rules about these things first? Trying to prevent disruption is why those alerts are there and is also kind of the opposite of issuing them disruptively. Either way, no need to ping Levivich further with this page since I made it clear I wanted to give them some space. If you have questions on how alerts vs. awareness works, probably better to discuss it at my talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern but just to be clear, you and everyone else are welcome to post here as much as you'd like. I can turn off the pings if they bother me. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm aware of this discussion, and since some of the people here have been so nice to me lately, I feel the need to clarify for those who aren't familiar with some of the more idiosyncratic ways that Wikipedia works, that "aware" in the dictionary sense of the word, meaning having already talked about it in the AN discussion, is not the same thing as WP:AWARE, wherein ArbCom sets some more specific requirements that go beyond just having talked about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Neat. PackMecEng (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• And here I thought those displayed images were just "hip cats" (those familiar with the Rat Pack era will get it.) — Ched (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts - No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or

They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or

In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or

In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive258#SashiRolls

In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

They have placed a Ds/aware template for the area(s) of conflict on their own talk page.

Then there's Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts which states: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. Just for the record. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• So in summary, editors must be aware but need not be alert? EEng 23:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• We told him he should become an admin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  I thought this was my RFA? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  That link has the best mouseover preview image ever. Thank you, Atsme! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your production and insight. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Puddleglum2.0 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I'd like to nominate Levivich to be Editor of the Week for a variety of reasons. Not only have they been a consistent voice of reason to many policy boards, they have also brought levity and much-needed humour to heavy discussions, including, but not limited to, ANI, AN, and many other hefty RFC discussions. Levivich has also contributed to two high-quality GA's and five other DYK's, which shows their dedication not only to the policies and backstage of Wikipedia but also the frontend material and the Wikipedia reader. Overall, Levivich has shown their self to be a highly productive and insightful editor, and despite the controversies surrounding their actions, I do believe that they are well deserving of this award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

|puddleglum]]^2.0 02:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• See [