| Revision as of 14:01, 21 November 2024 editScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators61,106 edits →Warnings, blocks, and overriding judgement: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:45, 9 January 2025 edit undoMalcolmxl5 (talk | contribs)Administrators149,241 edits →Thomas Partey: Thanks.Tag: Reply |
| (63 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|counter = 96 |
|
|counter = 97 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Block == |
|
== Revision deletion request == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block with. All project ] (]) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Many thanks for your quick response. Could I request one more please, at ? ] (]) 21:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*{{u|Wikishovel}} Done - thanks. ] 21:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
* Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. ] 11:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Your revert == |
|
== Thomas Partey == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you have a look at the antics at ] please? The short story is that the police have been investigating allegations made about a Premier League player and a file has been passed to the CPS but neither have named the individual (and they can’t due to privacy rules regarding the identification of suspects) meaning any sources naming anyone are conjecture. We have a young editor persisting adding the accusations to the article and talk page who will not stop. They have a CTOP notification. — ] (]) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
to this paragraph-. Including my own issues with it, that makes it 3 editors. ] (]) 21:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* {{u|Malcolmxl5}} Indefinitely blocked and every edit revision deleted. I've also semi-protected the article. Thanks, ] 21:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:In light of this apparent consensus to not include that paragraph, could you please revert your edit? ] (]) 21:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
*:Thanks. — ] (]) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:The edit you made that Black Kite reverted was not a reflection of the discussion, though. In it, both DataCrusader1999 and myself agree that the {{tq|q=y|article needs to be '''rewritten'''}} (bolding mine). To claim I said that a specific paragraph and only a specific paragraph should be removed is wrong. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> ''''']''''' </span> 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tq|I agree that the lead needs to be rewritten and that the highlighted '''paragraph about a diplomatic row is undue weight for the lead section of a BLP article'''. In fact, I feel more strongly than ever that either the scope of this article needs to change, or that content regarding the diplomatic row should be split.}} This what you said on October 15, one day after this version of the article-. |
|
|
::And this is what DataCrusader said: {{tq|The below paragraph should be mentioned in the '''diplomatic-fallout section'''.}} under the section title {{tq|change in lede of the article}}. ] (]) 00:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::...but you ''removed'' the content, you did not ''move'' it. I said ''rewrite'' not ''delete''. Stop twisting my words '''now'''. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> ''''']''''' </span> 01:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm in favour of moving/reinstating that paragraph to the Criminal Investigation/Diplomatic fallout section? Is that something we can both agree on? ] (]) 01:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> |
|
|
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> |
|
|
<div class="ivmbox-text"> |
|
|
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
</div> |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Warnings, blocks, and overriding judgement == |
|
|
|
|
|
That thread is already going to be bad enough without adding this tangent, so I'll bring it here. Your judgement was still that a block wasn't necessary in that situation, and although you did say another admin could block it would still be overriding your judgement in that case. I didn't feel so strongly that you were wrong in this instance that I'd take another action, just said it's not the action I would have taken. ] (]) 14:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: also might add a bit of context. ] (]) 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
