User talk:Levivich

proposed rename

Thanks for continuing to push back on the "it does't look racist to me" comments. I find those "arguments" so tiring. Maybe I'm the only commenter of Chinese descent but I'm sure there are others watching and it's not a good look. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you and everyone else has to deal with that. Levivich (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things like Cindy Yu's UK based podcast probably don't help. Also, the CCP's propaganda department made a puzzling choice to approve a culture section named Chinese Whispers in China Daily 10 years ago or so. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a barnstar, much deserved

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For this, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Huldra! It means a lot to me coming from you. Levivich (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involved

Isn't that an auto recusal at AE, if not for the content, the failure to disclose? As for the referral, that would then be at least, tainted? Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, even if you discounted their participation three out of three admins referring to Arbcom rather than four out of four is still a clear consensus to refer to Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked askance at this exchange when I first saw it: 1, 2, 3, and 24 hours after the first diff, 4. It's even worse in light of wp:involved. And RTH isn't the only one of the four admins who I have concerns about. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The referral itself is one thing but the follow up en passant included a gratuitously selected diff to argue that editors were being scared away but just ignored the misrepresentations of the editor I was responding to. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR. It hardly inspired confidence in the detachment of arbitrators that User:Theleekycauldron, one of the four referring administrators, stated at the very outset this is a sprawling case where basically all of the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground. That signalled to all readers that before any evidence had been forthcoming, Theleekycauldron had made up their mind that any and all longterm editors had conspired to tagteam and create a hostile environment in the IP area (my first thought was:does this mean that both putative 'sides' gang up together -against all commonsense -, or, more probably, only one side does, namely the 'pro-Pal' gaggle?) That is an extraordinary assertion of an arbitrator's personal conviction that the accusation is already a proven fact (that Arbcom only needed to formalize). I wasn't shocked, but I was surprised its damaging insinuation went unchallenged by other admins.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of making up minds, SFR made up his mind about referring to arbcom a month before I even filed at AE. At the time I thought he was joking. Later, I realized: not joking. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not for nothing, but when the rules are 500 words and 20 diffs and it's a lot of edit warring to demonstrate, that can't be helped. I am over the word limit but there's no way to have this discussion in under 500 words. you're probably moving beyond the scope of the venue. Dealing with complicated situations with many involved editors isn't a strong point of AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man, admit it: your mind was made up before you ever read the first diff. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If my mind were made up I wouldn't have spent all that time looking at the histories of all of those articles and looking at all those editor interactions. I would have just said "this looks hard, arbcom." I think the dozen or so ARBPIA AE reports I took part in after that statement (this is a rough guess) demonstrates that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really true, because confirmation bias. It's quite possible that your mind was made up before you reviewed the evidence, you reviewed the evidence anyway, and then confirmation bias led you to confirm your preconceived notions. Not just possible; that's how confirmation bias normally works. Levivich (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not TLC, so I can't speak for them, but I think the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground in this instance would probably be better stated as the actions of many of the regular editors of the topic serve to create a hostile battleground. It's not one sided, and I don't think they said any and all. They're also not an arbitrator and won't be deciding on any case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, since you're currently opposed to an arbitration case afaics, but IIRC once upon a time you said this topic area sucked and needed some divine help... what changed? in particular, seems like you think a different set of editors/behaviours are problematic now, compared to what you used to think? of course, I may be misremembering, it has been a while :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]