"Deputy" to the Polish President issue
Hi, recently I made some edits to the Polish President's Wikipedia article, specifically where I have labeled the Marshal of the Sejm as the Polish President's "deputy", but you seem to disagree stating that "Deputy is not the same as Ad interim" or that "Acting official does not mean Deputy official". Let me explain the following: the dictionary definition of a "deputy" is "someone appointed as the substitute of another, and empowered to act for them, in their name or their behalf" and the Sejm Marshal fits that description as the constitutional substitute for the Polish President as per Article 131 of the Polish Constitution which states that the Sejm Marshal becomes Acting President of Poland during both temporary and absolute absences of the President of Poland. Let me explain the following: The role of a deputy of a country's President varies by jurisdiction, Wikipedians at the very least define three basic categories of deputies to a country's President: first is the category of "Vice President" which is a standalone office existing for deputizing or replacing a President, second is the category of "Designated Acting President" which deputizes or replaces a President by holding another separate office, and third is the category of "Presidential Commission" (like the one in Ireland) which is essentially a collective version of a Designated Acting President (Note: this of course excludes countries whose Presidents have no deputies or assigned substitutes and instead a new President or Acting President has to be elected or appointed immediately, such as in the case of the President of Ethiopia). In a number of jurisdictions where there is a Vice President (such as the U.S. and Brazilian Vice Presidents), the Vice President usually becomes "Acting President" (where they are just temporarily assuming the duties and powers of the presidency of their countries when the official President is not available and do not assume the full Office of President in their own right) during temporary absences and become the "Official" President during absolute absences (meaning they are now officially occupying the Office of President for the remainder of the "original" President's term). However, some Vice Presidents (such as the Vice President of India) and most Designated Acting Presidents are usually only assigned by the local constitutions to serve as "Acting President" until a new "Official" President can be elected in case of absolute absence, but are also assigned to become "Acting President" during temporary absences (such as travel, illness, etc.) and even during certain occasions they might not assume all powers and duties of the country's President, but instead "deputise" for the President by performing on the President's behalf merely tasks that require the President's physical presence, such as the signing of documents. So the Marshal of the Sejm is the constitutional deputy of the Polish President in that sense of the word. 213.100.221.182 (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kashmiri reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- @Bbb23 Did you manage to read my reply on AN/EW? — kashmīrī TALK 14:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure they did, but what you don't seem to realize is that you violated WP:1RR and refused to take advantage of the opportunity to self-revert. 14:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not at all sure, because I explicitly agreed to self-revert, and was actually typing edit summary on the revert when the block came. — kashmīrī TALK 14:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're right, and I've unblocked you. I thought I had seen your argument about it not being two reverts, but obviously I did something wrong. You can now do what you said you would, which is self- revert. My apologies for my oversight: the block log is clear that the block was "erroneous".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. Was about to email you with clarification so as not to make a drama on my Talk page, lol. Happy evening! — kashmīrī TALK 15:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I support the unblock, but strangely, I have seen the same argument and I'm still not sure that kashmīrī understands that they violated the 1R restriction. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Kashmiri, it's still fairly early in the morning in my time zone, but thanks. Is M.Bitton right? Do you still not understand how you violated 1RR? In the midst of all this, I had been about to post a detailed explanation here but edit-conflicted, which then caused me to unblock, so I didn't post the explanation. Hope that makes sense. Anyway, if you wish, I can still do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about the lost text. And yes, enjoy the entire day, then! I originally missed the part
whether involving the same or different material
(WP:3RR) and understood (wrongly as it turns out) "one revert" as referring to repeatedly reverting the same edit, i.e., a classical edit war. Whereas going by the strict reading of the 1RR policy brings such misunderstandings as mine – it becomes impossible to remove more than one controversial passage on a day, even in case of different controversial statements inserted by different editors. I'll keep it in mind from now on, but it might be worth to review the policy one day. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 15:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about the lost text. And yes, enjoy the entire day, then! I originally missed the part
- Kashmiri, it's still fairly early in the morning in my time zone, but thanks. Is M.Bitton right? Do you still not understand how you violated 1RR? In the midst of all this, I had been about to post a detailed explanation here but edit-conflicted, which then caused me to unblock, so I didn't post the explanation. Hope that makes sense. Anyway, if you wish, I can still do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're right, and I've unblocked you. I thought I had seen your argument about it not being two reverts, but obviously I did something wrong. You can now do what you said you would, which is self- revert. My apologies for my oversight: the block log is clear that the block was "erroneous".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not at all sure, because I explicitly agreed to self-revert, and was actually typing edit summary on the revert when the block came. — kashmīrī TALK 14:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure they did, but what you don't seem to realize is that you violated WP:1RR and refused to take advantage of the opportunity to self-revert. 14:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Context
For the record, that IP was already warned about personal attacks and civility, and they still continued doing it. That's why when they started doing it in other articles as well, I reverted the clear WP:FORUM comment "addition" [1]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I saw it, but since you removed only selected sentences, including some that discussed the content, it felt like censorship and also went against WP:TPO in my opinion:
Removing other's posts... generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.
. I placed a level-3 warning on the IP editor's Talk. If they continue, we can move to level 4 and then a block. But hope they will stop. — kashmīrī TALK 09:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)- I just reverted their last 3 edits, which felt WP:FORUM to me. I didn't revert the initial comment because it wasn't WP:FORUM like, though I'm not sure how a 30 edit IP randomly finds and joins a discussion between me and another user which still awaits a WP:THIRD reply. Also, I'm not sure how a 30 edit IP knows/uses "OR" in their first edit summary, not even original research just OR. Clearly shows this is someone familiar with Wikipedia, probably a sock or something. Regardless, thanks for the help. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree they clearly have WP editing experience and I'm quite sure I know who they are. Still, I'd recommend to collapse such edits (or even leave them in). We normally delete (and do REVDEL) on content that's illegal, libellous, or contains personal detail; not just uncivil. — kashmīrī TALK 10:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, always good to leave a smoking gun in place for other editors to see. — kashmīrī TALK 10:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have you thought about WP:SPI if you know who they are? IPs are harder to detect than accounts because clerks can't CheckUser them out of privacy reasons, but if there are obvious behavioral patterns, the investigation will proceed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Emailed you. — kashmīrī TALK 10:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Emailed back. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Emailed you. — kashmīrī TALK 10:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have you thought about WP:SPI if you know who they are? IPs are harder to detect than accounts because clerks can't CheckUser them out of privacy reasons, but if there are obvious behavioral patterns, the investigation will proceed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I just reverted their last 3 edits, which felt WP:FORUM to me. I didn't revert the initial comment because it wasn't WP:FORUM like, though I'm not sure how a 30 edit IP randomly finds and joins a discussion between me and another user which still awaits a WP:THIRD reply. Also, I'm not sure how a 30 edit IP knows/uses "OR" in their first edit summary, not even original research just OR. Clearly shows this is someone familiar with Wikipedia, probably a sock or something. Regardless, thanks for the help. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)