Archives

no archives yet (create)

It's not appropriate to claim a consensus for your preferred version against an ongoing discussion in which there has been ongoing opposition, even if you think that opposition is small or insignificant or may eventually be discounted. There is no deadline, and changes can and will be made after the discussion is assessed for consensus by an uninvolved editor. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not my preferred version. JasonMacker proposed it, and they changed it. If you look at the discussion, eight people supported it, and there was one disagreement on that sub-proposal. My revert is based on that. You are free to revert it. My main proposal is still ongoing, and I have not changed anything—I just reverted when another editor made changes without any explanation. Astropulse (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also not all changes needs an rfc. the change in question is "Characterization of Israeli mass killings in Gaza" to "Ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza". this is not a big change. like i said 8 people supports this, without much objections. Astropulse (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of people who have objected in the discussion to such a change that frames it as reality, as well as people who object to it focusing on "mass killings" when the article is about the genocide accusations as a whole which by definition are more than just "did a lot of people die". They do not need to explicitly "re-object" to the subproposal for their objection to it to still count. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. We will wait to see what happens. Astropulse (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of WP:Bludgeon. Within this discussion, you have responded a lot more than appropriate even after being asked to reduce the frequency, and some of your responses have been less than great when it comes to being on-topic and polite to your fellow editors. I know that this type of discussion can get heated fast, but I would nevertheless appreciate it if you stopped doing that! FortunateSons (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, while I appreciate your concern, I don't feel like I'm dominating the conversation or arguing with everyone. Plenty of people are engaged in there, and my responses are within reasonable limits. Feel free to point out which reply you feel isn't polite and why—that might be of some help to me in the future Astropulse (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the caution and being receptive; while I disagree with your responses being within the permitted quantity, I also don’t believe that it’s catastrophic or anything like that, as long as your mindful in the future :)

Regarding tone/civility, while none of those are sanctionable per se, the following felt not great, but some of the tone might be getting lost to text:

1. omg.iv seen some of these editors edits. wonder why they were not banned long time ago.” might be considered WP:Gravedancing, but even if it isn’t, it’s just not a great way to refer to them. I have had extensive disagreement and discussions with a significant majority of them, and while I personally dislike many of their views, they also contributed productively to the project, sometimes for decades.
2. are you feeling alright ? might be genuine concern and just lost over texts, but is a statement that might come off condescending
3. About and short description. whats confusing about it? i mean everyone else seems to get the rfc see the statement above. Not horrible or anything, but probably not a great way to engage with an experienced colleague

FortunateSons (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is good feedback—I’ll definitely need to improve.

And yes, many of those editors are good editors. But one of them was very disruptive, got permanently banned, and I felt they should have been banned a long time ago. I was referring to that editor. See here. [1]

I think it is important to detect such editors early on before they can cause significant harm. That’s what I was trying to communicate. Astropulse (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]