User talk:Guerillero#A question about a recently deleted page

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:@GeogSage You are welcome! You captured enough to show that a check was needed, and that is a definite win for someone's first time filing a SPI report. As a side note, reading your userpage, I think there is a plausible chance that I may have read your work at some point if you still publish in the tiny field of using biostatistics for public health. I worked for the Demographic and Health Surveys Program as a cartographer for several years -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! I honestly hope this is the last time I need to fill one of these out, it is not how I like to spend my time but once I saw what I saw, I couldn't ignore it.

::It is possible you've read my work, but unlikely. I defended my dissertation last summer and just started in my current position in fall 2024. My professional publications are not the most high profile, although if you're reading cartographic peer-reviewed literature it is possible you bumped into one. On all but one of the publications in public health journals I'm on, I'm listed pretty far down the list of co-authors. Are you a cartographer still? I may be familiar with your work if you publish on these topics. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=Yamla (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hey Guerilliero, I feel you closed my AE request before any admin gave a complete look at the case. While silence is sometimes consensus to do nothing, several uninvolved non-admins identified problematic behavior from @M.Bitton. This include's @Fiveby indentifying M.Bitton's arguments as illegitimate,@Samuelshraga identifying incivility from M.Bitton, and @{{u|FortunateSons}} recommending an indefinite topic ban. Furthermore, @Asilvering noted that due to the high word count, the case would take longer than usual. Even if the action is ultimately no action, I believe these conclusions from uninvolved nonadmins merit a proper investigation from an admin. I will ping @Liz and @Barkeep49, who participated in the case as uninvolved admins and @Richard Nevell, who gave a statement above the line as well. Closetside (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:While I got sucked into a different AE, I managed to not get sucked into this one and so have no comment beyond what I left. Which to Guerillero's close was not an attempt at examining the whole situation or even really forming consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't have anything to add either. It's certainly true that no one really looked at the case. I don't think that's very fair to you, @Closetside, but I don't think extending it would be very fair to M.Bitton either. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::To me, a lack of substantive replies by admins at AE is an sign that there is not an appetite to act in a particular situation. That is not great for everyone involved, but it is also not great to keep things hanging around for extended periods of time. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, G. Obviously this was a difficult case to find consensus on, and I really feel like your criticism of workers there wasn't quite fair. People were doing their best. You can call it horse trading, but we had two non-overlapping opinions, which meant trying to find some area of agreement was difficult and messy and unfortunately in this case, didn't happen. That doesn't mean workers there did anything wrong. To me it felt like being scolded. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Valereee: I am thankful for each admin who examined and weighted the evidence provided. There is, however, a point where many people have provided input and the consensus is unclear, so someone uninvolved needs to be the one to close the discussion rather than additional levels of meta discussion that grows the Gordian knot. That being said, I was more harsh to my colleagues at AE than I needed to be. The work of AE admins is difficult and thankless. I should not add to the thanklessness. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, I appreciate that. :) Valereee (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Adam Cuerden has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)