ZaniGiovanni (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
ZaniGiovanni (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: New topic |
||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
::::The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behaviour rather than the content dispute at hand. I intended to ignore the issue until I had the patience to engage with a user like Armatura again, which is why I didn't respond to him for 20 days. But then he was banned, and since he was the only person in the discussion with whom I was conversing, I wasn't sure what else I was supposed to do. So I just reinstated my edit, explained my reasoning again on the talk page, and anyone new who disagreed could revert and restart the discussion. I can see now how that could have given the wrong impression, and I admit that I could have handled the situation better. I can apologise if that would help? — [[User:Golden|<span style="color:#0F52BA;">Golden</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Golden|<span style="font-size:82%"><span>''call me maybe?''</span></span>]]</sup> 16:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC) |
::::The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behaviour rather than the content dispute at hand. I intended to ignore the issue until I had the patience to engage with a user like Armatura again, which is why I didn't respond to him for 20 days. But then he was banned, and since he was the only person in the discussion with whom I was conversing, I wasn't sure what else I was supposed to do. So I just reinstated my edit, explained my reasoning again on the talk page, and anyone new who disagreed could revert and restart the discussion. I can see now how that could have given the wrong impression, and I admit that I could have handled the situation better. I can apologise if that would help? — [[User:Golden|<span style="color:#0F52BA;">Golden</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Golden|<span style="font-size:82%"><span>''call me maybe?''</span></span>]]</sup> 16:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{tq|The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behavior rather than the content dispute at hand.}} - they were actually addressing your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zangilan&type=revision&diff=1093765565&oldid=1093759886&diffmode=source ''own comment''] (about random IP sock speculations, redundant percentage threshold, etc.) and asking valid questions about the article and about your reply? That's a normal reply to your own comment, I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say here. And the rest of your explanation, I'm ''really'' not convinced by it. If you were so unsure what to do, you could’ve pinged other opposing users who formed consensus and asked their opinions, you could’ve done a lot of stuff. You can’t just “reinstate” your edit when you don’t have consensus, in fact, consensus was the ''opposite'' of your edit. It’s just [[WP:CIR|tiring]] that I even have to explain this to someone of your experience. Side note that Armatura’s block wasn't due to Zangilan lead discussion, it was another discussion on a user talk page I believe. Anyway, I'm not looking for apologies, we're past that and it wasn’t my intention in the first place. As I already said, I was looking for a solid rationale for your recent questionable behavior, as I in good faith thought that you ''must've'' had one. Unfortunately, I didn't see any. Just some elusive justifications. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk:ZaniGiovanni|talk]]) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC) |
:::::{{tq|The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behavior rather than the content dispute at hand.}} - they were actually addressing your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zangilan&type=revision&diff=1093765565&oldid=1093759886&diffmode=source ''own comment''] (about random IP sock speculations, redundant percentage threshold, etc.) and asking valid questions about the article and about your reply? That's a normal reply to your own comment, I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say here. And the rest of your explanation, I'm ''really'' not convinced by it. If you were so unsure what to do, you could’ve pinged other opposing users who formed consensus and asked their opinions, you could’ve done a lot of stuff. You can’t just “reinstate” your edit when you don’t have consensus, in fact, consensus was the ''opposite'' of your edit. It’s just [[WP:CIR|tiring]] that I even have to explain this to someone of your experience. Side note that Armatura’s block wasn't due to Zangilan lead discussion, it was another discussion on a user talk page I believe. Anyway, I'm not looking for apologies, we're past that and it wasn’t my intention in the first place. As I already said, I was looking for a solid rationale for your recent questionable behavior, as I in good faith thought that you ''must've'' had one. Unfortunately, I didn't see any. Just some elusive justifications. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk:ZaniGiovanni|talk]]) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion == |
|||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]] regarding a possible violation of an [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] decision. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk:ZaniGiovanni|talk]]) 18:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:22, 14 July 2022
DYK for Evening Bells (painting)
On 12 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Evening Bells (painting), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Isaac Levitan was inspired to paint Evening Bells (pictured) when he came across a small monastery in a remote village? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Evening Bells (painting). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Evening Bells (painting)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan
On 12 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the adoption of the Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan made the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic the first successful republic in the Muslim world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
What BRD is not
Good evening, Golden. After you reverted my edit in Azerbaijan article, shall I remind you what BRD is not?
- BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
- BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
- BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
My edit was neither vandalism, nore against common sense or policy and was in good faith, to reflect the terminology used in Artsakh article itself, so why did you revert it (even if you disagreed with it), instead of discussing? In view of your previous history of disregarding Wikipedia policies, I will have a low threshold for reporting this, unless sensible explanation is provided and an apology is offered. See further discussion about the content itself here: Talk:Republic of Artsakh#"Self proclaimed" vs "breakaway"
Kind regards, --Armatura (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't cited BRD as the reason for my revert, so I fail to see the relevance of citing it here. You changed long-standing terminology in a contentious topic area without any prior discussion, and you did not expect to be reverted? Sorry, but if the roles were reversed I would rightly be asked to have discussed the changes before-hand. — Golden call me maybe? 17:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, what WP policy are you citing for 1) reverting me and 2) not discussing your revert? --Armatura (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1) WP:EDITCONSENSUS; 2) I am discussing this revert right here with you. — Golden call me maybe? 17:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1) Care to elaborate? Which bit of that policy you are referring to? Specifically, where in that policy it says "if someone changes a long-standing terminology in a contentious topic area without prior discussion, reverting should be your primary method of operation"?
- 2) If you reverted and opened a talk page discussion, I would've counted it as WP:BRD. However, you did not discuss and you were not using WP:BRD you said. You just undid my WP:BOLD good faith edit with a comment that consisted of two parts: A) - "it's not loaded" (while WP:JUSTLIKEIT kind of argument is not an argument and "self-proclaimed" has negative connotation) and B) "it's the most commonly used word" (wrong information about which I can assume good faith, if you care to participate in the relevant content discussion I pinged you to).
- 3) Why did you choose to ignore the WP:DONTREVERT policy which says that For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. and that Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. Kind regards, --Armatura (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Armatura: Hey Armatura!
You seem to be very confused. Golden posted on my talk page requesting advice on how to handle this situation, but my only conclusion is Golden is not doing anything wrong here. Therefore, the only response I can give is one addressed to you.
(1) Policies, by their very nature, are meant to be broad. To ask someone for a policy, is to request the general rule. The general rule found in WP:EDITCONSENSUS is that articles, as they exist, are reflective of consensus. You are looking to change the consensus, so the burden is on you to try and achieve that consensus. That's the essence of WP:BRD (which, for the record, isn't a policy despite being widely accepted as a practice).
Also, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning behindBRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
If you follow the link, it leads to WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (a policy page) where you will see the actual "examples of ownership behaviour". Golden in this situation has exemplified none of them.
(2) Now, as I mentioned earlier, policies represent fundamental principles and general rules. One of those that I am sure you may appreciate is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Golden is under no obligation to participate in any talk page discussion if that is their desire. Golden explained their objection to your edit in the edit summary of the revert. You may not agree with Golden, but if you understood the intention behind the revert then that should be good enough for you. In fact, you were able to successfully start the talk page discussion by making constructive points in response to said edit summary. If Golden wants to further respond with points of their own, they'll probably do so there rather than here (and at their own pace; not when it's been demanded).
(3) Finally, this particular point of yours bothered me. WP:DONTREVERT is not a policy; it's an advice essay. Golden obviously didn'tchoose to ignore the WP:DONTREVERT policy
because it isn't one. They are under no obligation to follow that essay, and I find it particularly strange an editor of more than 15 years like yourself does not understand the particulars of WP:PGE.
For the record, I really hate having to constantly weigh in on these disputes. I have no affinity towards the country of Azerbaijan. If I see Golden doing something wrong, I'm going to call them on it. However, this is the third time in a row Golden has made an incredibly minor action which can be seen as slightly pro-Azeri despite being perfectly within Wikipedia's guidelines, and I again see another well established editor (such as yourself) overreact and threaten to report them over it. I'm getting sick of this pattern. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for your message, MJL. I do recognise your experience in English and Azerbaijani Wikipedias, but before I can address any of the raised points I am sorry to say I do not think you are the fairest / most skilled mediator in this case (and other Armenia-Azerbaijan related cases). A fair / skilled mediator would be someone who 1) does not make the mediation text to sound like a having a go at the user of opposite opinion, 2) does not "get sick" and otherwise over-emotional in the conclusion of the mediatory text and even if they do - does not speak of it, 3) is not in apparent mentor - mentee kind of relationship with one of the "sides", 4) does not raise WP:ASPERSIONS by hinting at behavioural patterns without promptly supporting those claims with evidence 5) does not call the user they are trying to educate "confused", 6) does not forget to WP:AGF towards the user they are trying to "educate", and so on. I could add more if you'd like, but this is enough for me to refuse your mediation services. Thank you for your time and good-faith effort, though. There are plenty of recognised neutral mechanisms such as DRN, or requesting a third opinion, or an uninvolved admin's opinion, and I am sorry to see that all these options have been bypassed to summon a specific "mentor" "to assist". --Armatura (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Armatura: I am not here to
mediate
, and I don't care about your content dispute with Golden. I am here to tell you that you are blatantly wrong about several of Wikipedia's policies. There is nothing to refuse. Either accept that you are wrong and stop feeding Golden misinformation regarding how Wikipedia works, or I report you for WP:CIR. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- I am sorry, but this conversation is falling below any acceptable standards, by any wiki or non-wiki measures. It stopped being constructive the moment it started focusing on person instead of content, and when emotions took over neutral reasoning. Have a good day. --Armatura (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are on a user talk page. That's where you focus on the people and not the content. Article talk pages are for article discussion; user talk pages are for user discussion.
Regardless, if that's the note you want to end on, then that's fine.
@Golden: please let me know if you have any further difficulties with Mr. Armatura. If I see anything you've done wrong on your end, you'll hear from me as always. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are on a user talk page. That's where you focus on the people and not the content. Article talk pages are for article discussion; user talk pages are for user discussion.
- I am sorry, but this conversation is falling below any acceptable standards, by any wiki or non-wiki measures. It stopped being constructive the moment it started focusing on person instead of content, and when emotions took over neutral reasoning. Have a good day. --Armatura (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Armatura: I am not here to
- Thanks for your message, MJL. I do recognise your experience in English and Azerbaijani Wikipedias, but before I can address any of the raised points I am sorry to say I do not think you are the fairest / most skilled mediator in this case (and other Armenia-Azerbaijan related cases). A fair / skilled mediator would be someone who 1) does not make the mediation text to sound like a having a go at the user of opposite opinion, 2) does not "get sick" and otherwise over-emotional in the conclusion of the mediatory text and even if they do - does not speak of it, 3) is not in apparent mentor - mentee kind of relationship with one of the "sides", 4) does not raise WP:ASPERSIONS by hinting at behavioural patterns without promptly supporting those claims with evidence 5) does not call the user they are trying to educate "confused", 6) does not forget to WP:AGF towards the user they are trying to "educate", and so on. I could add more if you'd like, but this is enough for me to refuse your mediation services. Thank you for your time and good-faith effort, though. There are plenty of recognised neutral mechanisms such as DRN, or requesting a third opinion, or an uninvolved admin's opinion, and I am sorry to see that all these options have been bypassed to summon a specific "mentor" "to assist". --Armatura (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Armatura: Hey Armatura!
- 1) WP:EDITCONSENSUS; 2) I am discussing this revert right here with you. — Golden call me maybe? 17:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, what WP policy are you citing for 1) reverting me and 2) not discussing your revert? --Armatura (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Your DYK nomination
I have requested help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. SL93 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. — Golden call me maybe? 17:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Great Wave off Kanagawa
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Great Wave off Kanagawa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Artem.G -- Artem.G (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Great Wave off Kanagawa
The article The Great Wave off Kanagawa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Great Wave off Kanagawa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Artem.G -- Artem.G (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for In the Ploughed Field: Spring
On 18 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article In the Ploughed Field: Spring, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the character of the mother in the painting In the Ploughed Field: Spring is believed to personify Spring? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/In the ploughed field. Spring. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, In the Ploughed Field: Spring), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Flag of Azerbaijan
The article Flag of Azerbaijan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flag of Azerbaijan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Azerbaijan Barnstar of National Merit | ||
For the time and effort you have put in towards promoting Flag of Azerbaijan, Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan and Mirza Shafi Vazeh to good article status, and improving several other articles such as Azerbaijan. — The Most Comfortable Chair 14:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC) |
- @The Most Comfortable Chair: Thank you; I appreciate it. — Golden call me maybe? 14:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Removal of Armenian names on Karabakh articles
Your removal of Armenian names from historical heritage sites on Karabakh articles [1], [2] [3] is problematic. These names are relevant considering the significant Armenian historical presence in the region, and are useful for people doing research of the area among other things, the source present the names in Armenian script, their description in English-language literature is often limited, and often the case is that searches for the names of the places often only produce relevant results when you search for them in Armenian script rather than in Latin script (an example: [4] [5]), together all of this belies your justification for removing the names that there is "no indication of any connection to AM, so the translation is irrelevant". AntonSamuel (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. The source presents them in Armenian script because the source is entirely in Armenian script; even if it said "Azerbaijani mosque", the text would still be in Armenian script, so I don't really understand the logic of "the source present the names in Armenian script".
- Placing an Armenian translation near monuments when the source (which, due to its partisan nature, should have been used with proper attribution) makes no mention of it having any relation to Armenia/ns gives the reader the wrong impression and would actually be more harmful than helpful to anyone doing research about the area (it's also safe to assume that anyone willing to research such an obscure topic would check the source themselves and find the AM script name there). The very example you provided demonstrates the flaws in this logic; the Azeri name for the "Karnakash" fortress, "Qalalı", yields three thousand more results than the Armenian script name.
- So, I don't think it'd be within Wikipedia's guidelines to include such a translation unless you have an at least somewhat non-partisan source (i.e., one that wasn't produced by modern Artsakh or AZ officials) demonstrating a link between the monuments and Armenia/ns. A good compromise to such an issue would be to not use any translations for monuments that have no clear affiliation with either ethnic group. — Golden call me maybe? 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's far faster to find names to search for directly in the articles rather than in the source, there should be no problem including relevant Azerbaijani names too when they're available. Sources that describe the region in detail tend to be local sources, meaning Armenian and Azerbaijani sources, the main issue should be if the sources meet standard requirements of reliability, and that propagandistic nationalist sites are to be avoided [6]. The main purpose of the articles are to inform the readers about their respective subjects, it's problematic to point to Wikipedia guidelines to justify decreasing the quality and usefulness of articles, which I would say suggests battleground thinking, which is especially problematic for such a contested topic area as WP:ARBAA2. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I want to understand your rationale first
Hi Golden. I'm making a different thread (similar to above) because I find your recent revert in Zangilan quite problematic for a number of reasons.
First, you didn't reply to the solid arguments presented on talk page for 20 days. Second, the user Armatura who made that comment was blocked yesterday, after which you bothered to finally reply hours later after their block. Your reply was an irrelevant search result and didn't address the arguments, let alone how inappropriate and problematic it is to wait for someone to get blocked then reply to them. But you didn't stop there, you reinstated your own edit less than a day later with an edit summary "per talk". "Per talk" what exactly? That you didn't have consensus? That you didn't address the arguments brought up on talk? That your comment was subpar for reinstating your edit? That the user is blocked the same day which means they can't reply to you now?
I want to hear your explanation first because I still want to assume good faith even though all of the above is very bad faith any day of the week. I already warned about your WP:TEND edit to your mentor once (like they asked), but I don't plan doing this every time you make a problematic edit in AA area. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Commenting here to say I saw this comment and will probably give a full response in the morning. In the meantime, Golden, please consider holding off from making any further edits to AA2 until I have completely reviewed this situation. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I spoke with Golden in private. I expressed pretty great frustration with their recent actions and received assurances it would not be repeated. I'm responding to memorialize this conversation. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort, but we are past the assurances part at this point, aren't we? Golden was put under a tban probation after their sock appeal. It was lifted just a couple of months ago, yet Golden doesn't appear to show any signs of change in AA. It is not a single mistake, or even a few unrelated mistakes: I see the same tendentious pattern prior to their socking. I already highlighted one of them to you in the recent past - instead of reporting them I came straight to your talk page as their mentor, out of good faith and courtesy. I didn't yet report for the current incident either, I was willing to assume good faith even in this situation and that Golden must've had some rationale in mind for their recent behavior. I was flabbergasted - there surely should've been some self-reflection after the socking, the tban probation, the edit I notified about on your talk not so recently??? I would expect a serious reflection from someone who has double the age/experience of my account and given all the above context. Yet it's the same old story repeating itself, and the same elusive justifications for tendentious edits/behavior, what are those reassurances worth at this point? I think we reached a point where Golden has to explain themselves directly, in front of a larger community. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ZaniGiovanni: If you are suggesting you should report Golden to AE for this incident (as part of a larger pattern), then nothing I'm going to say is going to be helpful for you. I spoke to Golden privately on the matter because I was personally upset about it, but it wasn't exactly severe gravedancing here. You could argue it was a bit of gaming the system, but I am personally not convinced that was what this was. This is not something that is likely to be repeated nor is it something I think Golden willfully did.
Either way, I have no intentions of shielding Golden from accountability (nor is that even something I am capable of). If you need me to get out of the way for you to have this conversation solely with Golden, then just say as much. I just happen to be a (talk page watcher) lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC) - The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behaviour rather than the content dispute at hand. I intended to ignore the issue until I had the patience to engage with a user like Armatura again, which is why I didn't respond to him for 20 days. But then he was banned, and since he was the only person in the discussion with whom I was conversing, I wasn't sure what else I was supposed to do. So I just reinstated my edit, explained my reasoning again on the talk page, and anyone new who disagreed could revert and restart the discussion. I can see now how that could have given the wrong impression, and I admit that I could have handled the situation better. I can apologise if that would help? — Golden call me maybe? 16:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The majority of Armatura's points in his last reply were almost entirely comments on user behavior rather than the content dispute at hand.
- they were actually addressing your own comment (about random IP sock speculations, redundant percentage threshold, etc.) and asking valid questions about the article and about your reply? That's a normal reply to your own comment, I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say here. And the rest of your explanation, I'm really not convinced by it. If you were so unsure what to do, you could’ve pinged other opposing users who formed consensus and asked their opinions, you could’ve done a lot of stuff. You can’t just “reinstate” your edit when you don’t have consensus, in fact, consensus was the opposite of your edit. It’s just tiring that I even have to explain this to someone of your experience. Side note that Armatura’s block wasn't due to Zangilan lead discussion, it was another discussion on a user talk page I believe. Anyway, I'm not looking for apologies, we're past that and it wasn’t my intention in the first place. As I already said, I was looking for a solid rationale for your recent questionable behavior, as I in good faith thought that you must've had one. Unfortunately, I didn't see any. Just some elusive justifications. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ZaniGiovanni: If you are suggesting you should report Golden to AE for this incident (as part of a larger pattern), then nothing I'm going to say is going to be helpful for you. I spoke to Golden privately on the matter because I was personally upset about it, but it wasn't exactly severe gravedancing here. You could argue it was a bit of gaming the system, but I am personally not convinced that was what this was. This is not something that is likely to be repeated nor is it something I think Golden willfully did.
- Thanks for the effort, but we are past the assurances part at this point, aren't we? Golden was put under a tban probation after their sock appeal. It was lifted just a couple of months ago, yet Golden doesn't appear to show any signs of change in AA. It is not a single mistake, or even a few unrelated mistakes: I see the same tendentious pattern prior to their socking. I already highlighted one of them to you in the recent past - instead of reporting them I came straight to your talk page as their mentor, out of good faith and courtesy. I didn't yet report for the current incident either, I was willing to assume good faith even in this situation and that Golden must've had some rationale in mind for their recent behavior. I was flabbergasted - there surely should've been some self-reflection after the socking, the tban probation, the edit I notified about on your talk not so recently??? I would expect a serious reflection from someone who has double the age/experience of my account and given all the above context. Yet it's the same old story repeating itself, and the same elusive justifications for tendentious edits/behavior, what are those reassurances worth at this point? I think we reached a point where Golden has to explain themselves directly, in front of a larger community. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I spoke with Golden in private. I expressed pretty great frustration with their recent actions and received assurances it would not be repeated. I'm responding to memorialize this conversation. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)