User talk:Technophant: Difference between revisions

Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to remain civil and follow userspace guidelines. Due to peronal health issues, there may unanticipated periods of little or no editing or monitoring. If there's an urgent issue you can Thank one of my edits to trigger an email alert.~Technophant (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

I just reverted an edit you made changing many ISILs to Islamic State. You may not be aware of the many failed move attempts to move to Islamic State for the article and related articles. Continued debate toward using "Islamic State" has now been deemed disruptive and topic bans and other sanctions could be imposed. (not a threat by me, just trying to give you a heads up). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#An_RM_to_ISIS.3F and look at the collapsed section. and editors are now being warned and one got a 3 month ISIL topic ban already. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac First, the discussion has been closed by whom? There's no signature or closing decision. I've been away for the last two weeks and did not see the discussion. And why is it collapsed? Also, this change has nothing to do with "end run around RM". It's just a common sense bold proposal. I've made a new proposal to use contextually appropriate names. ~Technophant (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it and found that User:PBS had closed the discussion and changed the archive algo from 14 days to 3 days then 7 days. I missed everything due to this. There seems to be strong feelings from Legacypac that seem to be based on personal issues, not WP guidelines. Please also note that Legacypac's edit here with battlegroundish edit summary also removed a spelling correction. I don't like conflict, I don't want to edit war, and I don't want to get TBanned. There's civil ways of handing this. I think this issue to go to Dispute Resolution. 15:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the top of the talk page for the pull down list of page changes. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text where wide input was solicited and the conclusion reached we would be consistent with ISIL not "Islamic State". Look at the title of the article. If you want to dispute the title again, good luck. My attitude is not battleground, it is "let's be consistent". There is no point in having RMs and Rfcs to make decisions and than have editors just do whatever and threaten the editors with dispute resolution for sticking to the decisions. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac If you look I support a moratorium on article renaming. The proposed change of the acroymn does not mean that ISIL is the only name for the group. If that is so then you should go to the ISI section and change that acronym to ISIL too. Does that make sense? No. Please answer my question on the ISIL talk page on why you think the name "Islamic State" is "very problematic".17:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not change the archive length to 3 days that was done by a different editor (to 4 days) and reverted by that editor back to 7 days. I set it to 7 days because at the moment there is over 20K a day going into the talk page. That meant that before I changed the time to 7 days it was over 450k which is far too large for a talk page for anyone on a slow link or a pay per byte tariff.
• The section to which you refer was there when you posted to the page 03:55, 12 October 2014 it was there when I replied at 13:14, 12 October 2014. It was still there when you next edited Wikiepdia at 21:25, 13 October 2014. So it was there for you to view and add opinions. It was not "It was archived prematurely" it was archived at 01:29, 15 October 2014‎ (less than 24 hours ago).
• I see you have edited User talk:GraniteSand but you have totally missed the point in the second edit link it has nothing to do with the edit clash that put back some words by P123ct1 which P123ct1 had removed. It had everything to do with the paragraph at the bottom of that link which starts "Warned? You seem to be under ...". Hence my detailed explanation and highlighting of several sentences when I imposed the temporary ban.

-- PBS (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PBS Like I said, I've been out of the loop for a while, however what I've known of User:GraniteSand is that he has been a constructive editor in this area. There's a battleground going on, however I don't think GS is the problem. I'm sorry I accused you of changeing it 3 days. It really should have been discussed before anybody changed it, however I see that you were trying in GF to help fix it. You proposed the moratorium over 7 days ago there seems to only support for it so let's put that in place and hope it calms things down.~Technophant (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in which you may be interested has opened here. - SantiLak (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the author of all the nonsense edits on the ISIL events timeline page. Except for updates on situation in Kobane, my only edit was "*1 October: the town of Taza Kharmatho is retaken by Peshmerga and Iraqi Army forces, but remains uninhabitable due to booby traps left by ISIL.". It was sourced, and if that is not considered a reliable source, then half of what is on that page doesn't have a reliable source. It seems to me that you refused all the additions caught in the review period without checking each one, and that's pretty irritating.--2.35.58.16 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@2.35.58.16: I wasn't the editor that rejected the edits. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Feel free to redo you unaccepted edit. I'll remove your warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--2.35.58.16 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my changes here. Can you please help me understand why this is better or more clear? I don't see it that way.~Technophant (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technophant:: I thought it was a mistake. The version just before the one I altered here started with "As Islamic State of Iraq" and then went on to add a "the" before the ISIS and IS headings. I also remembered that when the article had "As" in the subheadings, there was no "the" in the titles. I didn't realise you had added "the" deliberately! I do think "the" looks a little strange, but would you like me to revert? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technophant:: I am trying to archive my Talk page, not very successfully, and thought I had better put your message here in case it gets lost. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 Do you need help? I prefer to manually archive my talk page but I can also set up automatic.~Technophant (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I managed it! It was by trial and error like last time because I couldn't understand the WP Help on archiving properly. I couldn't remember some of the steps I took last time. Phew! What about the edit? Would you like me to change it back? I don't mind, but it will have to be tomorrow as it is very late here. Let me know. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 Yes, please change it back. I want to get wider input on it b4 relenting to remove it. (was that too sarcastic?)~Technophant (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I couldn't self-revert, as the diff I got wasn't mine, so did it manually. Remember it was only two "The"s that I changed, and no, it wasn't sarcastic! --P123ct1 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential trouble here. See last few entries. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1: I took him to wp:ANI. Please go there and give supporting evidence.~Technophant (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1: Technophant, in future cases like this please consider transparency issues related to the using of peoples names when canvassing. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Technophant: I recommend that you remove this notification at once. If you'll notice at the general sanctions log, Gregkaye has already been notified. Editors are never supposed to notify someone of the existence of these sanctions more than once, and certainly not for the sake of badgering editors. Please read the following:

  Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.

  This comes from here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:RGloucester thanks for catching that. I didn't check the log closely enough before I notified. The entry has been removed. I apologized here. I be more careful in the future.~Technophant (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester , as you know, when Technophant apolgized the text read as follows:

• I've been informed that you were already on the notify log. The duplicate entry has been removed. I apologize for the oversight.~Technophant (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, placed late on Monday afternoon (UK time), states: "The duplicate entry has been removed" but gives no link to a removal. Following the edit Technophant would have been able to see that the offending banner remained in place.

Never-the-less, this editor was then involved in a large number of other edits during which I made no reply to the "I've been informed" text. It was then only at 01:56 (UK time) on the Tuesday morning that the offending text was removed following which, at 04:08 (UK time), it was re-issued.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this request for clarification in this regard.GreyShark (dibra) 21:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Technophant: do you want to explain the content of this thread? Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what you mean here [1], in particular the word "forced", when you wrote "This section was forced to be put into this article as part of the general censorship of his name debacle." Is this an on-Wikipedia discussion you are talking about? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Yes. I was notified through edit summaries (and further clarified by email) that at that time there was a general consensus among Oversight to not allow his name to be on Wikipedia. After his execution that ban expired.~Technophant (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems rather disturbing (to me anyway). It amounts to Wikipedia self-censoring itself because of the opinions or the restrictions of governments or governmental agencies. I wonder where else on Wikipedia this sort of thing has occurred? Did a similar thing happen regarding David Haines, I wonder? BTW, I do not think the "Haines' family requested that his abduction be kept a secret" claim in the article is correct - it was entirely a UK Foreign Office position. I recall media reports to that effect, but I will have to look into it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield Actually the "forced" (see edit history at David Cawthorne Haines) was due to an admin and the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_115#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significance (or similar thread) not edit summaries or emails. The name redaction was as I stated. I requested several time to several forums pleading that Oversight release a statement as to why the name was being revdeleted and what's going on (when a decision is going to be made) however to the best of my knowledge no public statements were ever made. It's kind of like the NSA, you know they are listening, you know they can take actions, but if you ask them to explain what they are doing you won't ever get a reply. Very distasteful. Goes against what I thought Wikipedia was about. ~Technophant (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I didn't realise you were editing the David Haines article at exactly the same time as I was! Sorry if I disrupted any of your edits. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WOW - reading the village pump contributions, it is disturbing that that false claim that the Haines' family had requested his name not be used in the news was being put forward by some editors as a reason to censor Wikipedia. I'm fairly certain that news of the abduction, and the family's increasing anger at the inactivity of the British government and the ongoing media ban, was in some sections of the media before the video release. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the discussion happened behind closed doors. I too couldn't find any source that claimed that the family didn't want it in the media. His widow went the press and didn't mention anything about it. Even after that happened the "censors" refused to budge from their position, nor did any members of the Oversight committee participate in the Village Pump discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tiptoethrutheminefield - I'm going to repost my email I sent to On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:00 AM to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org:

I'm not sure why this matter isn't being debated openly. I would like to add this comment I posted to Jimbo's talk page to discussion:

I'm very concerned about the current trend. There seems to be not only reversions, revdeletes, and even blocks regarding this matter. It's one thing to have an open disagreement as to what should or shouldn't be in article space but it's a whole different game when the normal consensus building processes is subverted. The given reason that there's been a media blackout is that the family requested it so that hostage negotiations aren't affected. The subject's wife however isn't playing along with this however. She broke here silence and did a news interview, David Haines' Wife Speaks for First Time Since ISIL Video Released. She does NOT mention a request for this to be kept out of the media. I think this current trend is toxic to consensus building and article writing and is eroding the pillars that this project was founded on.

Out of the 20+ persons on the Wikipedia:Functionaries list I received no reply.

Later, on Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM I sent:

There's another issue with a different hostage, and American woman whom MeropeRiddle has requested not be named. See Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Another hostage.

Also, I was wonder if Oversight has released public statement regarding this issue? I'm also wondering what the stance is regarding inclusion of the name of the 4th Western hostage, a British subject. So far his name is included on 2014_ISIL_beheading_incidents#Alan_Henning.

Could I please be emailed old revisions of [[David Cawthorne Haines]]? I want to make sure that all usable user contributions are included and also since I copied the original Draft from Google cache there needs to be proper CC-BY attribution to original author(s).

I got one reply saying there's a discussion underway, comples issue, etc. Frustrating. I complained to WP:AUSC demanding transparency and a public statement but also didn't get a reply. ~Technophant (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the long delay. I have an interest in promoting transparency, and here is the reason why there was no public statement: I could not solicit a sufficient response and reach a consensus from my colleagues after forwarding your request to release any public statement.

Unfortunately I cannot act unilaterally because not everyone may be in agreement as to what to do, but I can only offer you advice in my own personal capacity. (1) The unfortunate death of the hostage is this case makes moot the need for suppression, and the suppression has since been lifted. (2) This case does raise a valid issue as to how to deal with similar future cases, and in the absence of any reference to specific outstanding (in the sense of unresolved) examples, the community should have a wider and fuller discussion as to how to approach such a situation in future.

Again I apologize for the protracted delay, and I hope this will address your concerns and have provided directions on the next step forward. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mailer Diablo It sounds like the committee didn't know what to do or couldn't come to a consensus on the issue. I did request that a page be started explaining any new policy of guideline decision and an summary of the David Cawthorne Haines incident. Just having an explanation on my talk page doesn't answer the lingering questions posed by the community in multiple discussion. ~Technophant (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. If you intend to start a wider policy discussion, do let me know on my talk page so that I can pass the message on for other OS members to participate in the discussion. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping involved editors @MeropeRiddle: and @Wnt:~Technophant (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the lack of interest in consensus, I can only look at the oversighters' behavior - I haven't looked as carefully as I ought, but I'm not aware of them doing anything with Peter Kassig. Unfortunately, [www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-issues-deadline-warning-american-hostage-peter-kassig-beheading-1471153 tomorrow], we're probably going to have another chance to see how the issue plays out, but I'll hope that they are through interfering. Their position on Haines was so over the top, beyond all other media even in Britain, that I really have no adequate theory to explain it. (At some point I should go over the "conspiracy" viewpoint vis-a-vis DA-Notice 5, but it's likely a snipe hunt) Wnt (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@technophant, I have been out of the loop for a bit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 11:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post on ANI discussing an RFC/U that you had about another editor. You mention on ANI that you have a consensus to topic ban that editor. This consensus is it in the RFC/U? If so I'm wondering if you perhaps missed Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#The_nature_of_RfC.2FUSerialjoepsycho (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serialjoepsycho Topic ban was not part of the original proposed solutions, it was just the last resort consenssu after the editor refused to cooperate and attacked the nominators. That part was on the rfcu talk page. I took it to requests for close, which has a backlog. I guess it could have been taken to AN. There was a general apathy because the editor had quit editing. I suggest you read the rfcu and talk page.~Technophant (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the RFC/U and the talk page. I was just stopping by to inform you that while you may have a consensus at the RFC/U for a ban, A RFC/ U is still a voluntary process and you still can't use it to "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures".Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serialjoepsycho The RFC/U has been closed for "inactivity". The discussion on the talk page of the RFC/U continues. There's a clear consensus to take this to AN for a topic ban {CBAN}. I am excusing myself from starting any further noticeboard discussion and have asked for help taking getting the proposed CBAN placed. You are an uninvolved editor, would you be willing to close the talk page discussion and take the proper actions to put the proposed sanctions in place?~Technophant (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies but no I would rather stay uninvolved. Being uninvolved is not helpful in this situation. I'm unaware of what has actually taken place. It would probably be best for you or one of those have endorsed your RFC to take it to ANI.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Content moved from: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment:Worldedixor)

• Technophant, I want to ask you a few direct questions relating to your canvassing practices related to this case.

At the time of that you opened the thread: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor you also conducted a canvassing trawl with the effect of contacting the following editors:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adjwilley&diff=prev&oldid=625162206
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ericl&diff=prev&oldid=625273456
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=prev&oldid=625273589
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=prev&oldid=625273770
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Supersaiyen312&diff=prev&oldid=625277088
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thnidu&diff=prev&oldid=625277278
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master_of_Puppets&diff=prev&oldid=625279692

1. What was your criteria regarding the choice of these editors and how did you go about choosing them?

• All the contacts were made from 11-12 September.
• This was a period of time that directly coincided with Worldedixor's provision of his invaluable and repeated assistance in the long running thread: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 12#"Daash", "'Daʿesh" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article
• The timespan of within which Worldedixor repeatedly gave his invaluable assistance ranged from 9-15 September which is all the more remarkable as he had the RFC going on at the time.

2 Did you do any checking on Worldedixor's current editing activities at the time of the proceedings?

3 Did you know about the thread just mentioned?

4a If so, why didn't you also notify me about the proceedings?

4b If not, would you have done so if you had known?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to #1 it's been asked and answered. #2, yes. #3, yes. I put considerable thought in how to handle this issue. While WE has made some valuable contributions (esp. with his knownledge of Arabic), his behavior toward other editors on the talk page and on user talk pages was unacceptable. I was really hoping WE would take the opportunity given to him in the RFC/U to address the issues presented. Instead he chose to attack the certifiers. #4, We considered putting a notice of the RFC/U on the ISIL talk page, and in retrospect I should have. We didn't want to shame WE or feel like he was being attacked or lynch mobbed so it wasn't advertised very widely. I'm not sure it would have mattered, considering WE's lack of willingness to cooperate with the Request. This is my first time starting a RFC/U and now I that I know more about the process if I have to start one again will follow the guidelines more closely. I was hoping that in the closing process something would happen other than simply archiving it. The whole process of trying to deal with user issues if very draining.

Gregkaye, in light of the open WP:AN/I discussion about your disruptive edits initiated by me, these questions seemed to be aiming at either finding fault, getting me in trouble, or attempting to discredit me. I view this as further proof of your battleground mentality and warn you against further attempts to distract the community away from your issues.~Technophant (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant you have not answered my first and fourth questions. You also add less than relevant "We considered" and We didn't" claims but provide no links that might facilitate their validation. As far as I can see from Worldedixor's editing history I was likely the only person that this editor was working with at the time of the RfC. I wasn't contacted. I opened here with the statement, "I want to ask you a few direct questions relating to your canvassing practices related to this case." The questions are clearly phrased and the first and fourth questions remain unanswered. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye I feel I should put you more in the picture, in Technophant's defence. Please study the RfC/U (and its Talk page) and in particular look carefully at the links on the front page and note their dates. This will help you to understand more what was going on. Trouble began around 25 July and was relentless until the RfC/U was started, which I think was about the time you joined the page. Things quietened down obviously when the RfC/U began, for reasons that will be clear when you read what the RfC/U was about. Those links on the RfC/U and a quick glance through the archived Talk pages in August especially will show you what had been happening and why the RfC/U came about. Notifying other editors about the RfC/U was a problem, as putting it on the Talk page seemed unfair to Worldedixor, yet limiting it to editors who had had clashes obviously looked like unfair selection bias, so we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't. In retrospect it probably would have been better to advertise it publicly. Neither of us is experienced in handling RfCUs. I expect my message here will have a boomerang effect but I will have to risk it, as I think you need to know why Technophant acted as he did. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you are very much mistaken by notifying users on the sanctions (including me). You see, i was one of the people to propose those sanctions and i'm very much aware that non-administrators (like you) are not permitted to issue warnings and/or record them officially at the sanctions log. You are welcome to withdraw all your allegations for the 5 users (user:Legacypac, user:2.35.58.16, user:Olonia, user:Wheels of steel0, user:Greyshark09), you mistakenly logged in and delete the notifications logs as well. If you don't do it my friend, you might be accused of pretending being an administrator, which you are obviously not. I assume you are simply unfamiliar with the sanctions protocol for that matter - if you suspect someone to violate 1RR, you report to the administrator noticeboard, and not take the law into your hands. You were already warned on similar actions by administrator RGloucester. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 16:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion on my talk page about this. Obviously these are not warnings and any editor can place them. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: See this discussion on whether and when official warnings may be issued (interpretation of the ARBCOM guidelines).GreyShark (dibra) 21:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GreyShark Dougweller They are notifications, not warnings. With the recent clarification that they are not required before punitive actions being taken, and that because they are on the talk page and boldly unavoidable in the edit notice I'm not sure there's much reason to use them further, unless it is on articles that do not have the Syrian war edit notice.~Technophant (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to fix your signature on this edit -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PBS I fixed it. Most likely I missed one of the ~'s. I wouldn't have minded if you would have fixed it yourself. It's an important log and needs to be clear.~Technophant (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why you had to fix it. It is one thing using {{unsigned2}} on talk pages, but when it comes to sanctions it is better that the i are dotted and the t are crossed by the editor who does the notification. The danger is otherwise we run into Sorites paradox. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PBS I've had this happen several times, and the last time it happened it was very clear in the changes review that I had used four ~'s. I don't know if it's a bug with my browser or an issue with Wikimedia not substituting the timestamp properly. If it keeps happening I'll ask at Technical to see if it is a general issue that others are experiencing.~Technophant (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the tilde you have at the front of the signature is confusing it, however there is also an option to have the signature placed semi automatically (using the [insert v] option directly below the edit page) see after the dash, ndash etc where says in bold "Sign your posts on talk pages:". If you try using that and the error occurs then talk to technical -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous comments, here is heads-up over Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎#Talk page too long(318,000) -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you don't know me but I would still like to make a genuine offer. Please take some time to consider various of your behaviours that other editors have described with meanings related to aggression. Life is complicated and we all have issues that we need to work through. I'm sure that, if there are people in your social network that you can help and from whom you can receive help. If by any chance you lack such contacts then, without prejudice of activities here, I would be happy to swap contacts and be involved in any suitable way. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC) edited[reply]

Gregkaye I'm not sure what you mean by aggression. Have other users described my actions as aggressive? I've backed down from editing in general, trying to recover from this back surgery, which is finally starting to improve luckily. Pain does affect me and I try my best not to make my pain a problem for others, but it could happened. Can you please give me more input on what you mean?~Technophant (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Even on this page Legacypac has left a message, to which you have not replied, in which x/he talks of you acting vindictively towards him/her. See: User talk:Technophant#Please Retract
• Worldedixor makes regular comment regarding your vindictive action.
• In my personal situation I can list several instances of your questionable behaviour. In one instance, which was in relation to an AN/I that you placed against me that related to a discussion with which you had no involvement, you applied this amplification and manipulation of an existing rhetorical content. For independent comment PBS regarded it as a "breach of guidance ... as it invites someone to a lynching rather than giving a factual statement of attending a court case." You can go to WP:AN/I and check various linking methodologies through the use of the "what links here" function.

I have not seen your approach to be balanced or proportionate. It is really your responsibility to reflect on your editing behaviours and, for the general good of the community, I sincerely hope that you can do so.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technophant I have warned Gregkaye not to alter any changes I make to edits made by Gregkaye to the talk pages under the General Sanctions of the Syrian Civil War... . Please read User talk:Gregkaye#Warning and the relevant sections on my talk page (user talk:PBS#Even handed approach and colapsing etc).

Gregkaye has been a little selective of what I wrote on his talk page about your edits, and has recently linked another section as a heads up (here) which includes a link to this edit by you (dated 22 October 2014).

I did not take any action the edit(s) on 22 October 2014, because I did not see it and even if I had I might not have done anything because it was a less obvious breach then the one that Gregkaye made at a later date. As Gregkaye has raised the issue, I wish to explain in more detail.

Here are two of your posts:

Disruptive editing by User:Gregkaye

Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated NPOV and talk page consensus. The is an open discussion on AN/I. If you want to participate in this discussion please go to the discussion at the discussion at this link and please refrain from discussion here.~Technophant (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

moved 11 minutes later (00:46, 22 October 2014) to a new place within an existing section, edited again at 00:51, 22 October 2014 (and as there was no intervening edits they count as one edit).

• NOTICE: Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated NPOV and talk page consensus. The is an open discussion on AN/I. If you want to participate in this discussion please go to the discussion at the discussion at this link and please refrain from discussion here. It is against WP:talk page guidelines. ~Technophant (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The first part of the edit was unacceptable for exactly the same reason as I explained to Gregkaye why his similarly constructed edit was a breach of WP:TALK and WP:TALKNEW.

However although the move of the sentences meant that the second part of the edit no longer breached WP:TALKNEW, it did not place the edit within the guidelines, because the first sentence is phrased in such a way that it invites people to a lynching. If you wished to raise this issue on the talk page all that is need is a simple bland statement along the lines of your second sentence.

The second sentence is informative for both interested and disinterested editors, without breaching the WP:TALK guidelines. Although you probably ought not to advertise such things in article talk space, because what is wanted at AN/I are the opinions of disinterested editors to form a consensus on the specific issue that you think is a breach of policy or guidance. Advertising the AN/I in article talk space tends to turn the AN/I discussion into a Wikidrama which ends up as a continuation of the content debate in another forum. At the end of which the disinterested editors tend to decide "A plague on both your houses" (Shakespeare) and so no consensus is reached and no action taken at AN/I.

Statements by Gregkaye justifying attack edits on other editors because (s)he thinks that (s)he has suffered similar attacks shows why breaches of the WP:TALK guidelines is in the long term counter productive, because it encourages a battle field mentality and makes the building of a consensus over content more difficult.

So, I hope you see why the edit quoted above above was counter productive and not the best way forward, but if you do not, and if you post things in the future that I think clearly breach talk page and/or other guidelines, I may take administrative action over such edits. If I do, then I am doing so as an uninvolved administrator under the general sanctions, and, if the action that I take is to edit the talk page, do not change my edits. If you think an administrative action that I have made under the auspices of the general sections, is unreasonable then you may ask me to change it on my talk page. If I refuse and after you have read my explanation why I refuse, then you may of course appeal thorough the usual channels. -- PBS (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant Please strike all content by which you have contravened Wikipedia's guidelines in relation to your related lynching adverts.

I would further recommend that if you move an edit that you mark it as moved. Please also pay attention to time stamps used. The impression that you gave to me as a pinged editor was of the addition of yet another lynching text which also has the unjustifiable effect of an attempt to shut down related talk page debate.

I also want to ask, and please for once answer, in all your many encounters with Wikipedia's Administrative resolution systems and in response to accusations of vindictiveness by other editors have you at any point become aware that "what is wanted at AN/I are the opinions of disinterested editors to form a consensus on the specific issue"? By this point I think I deserve honesty. It is needed if there is to be trust between us as editors. These issues should not be merely a matter of skirting rules so as to achieve the best results for a personal agenda but they are best as internal guides of good behaviour.

10:15, 3 November 2014 Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS Thank you for the your detailed explanation of Talk and AN guidelines. I knew that user issues shouldn't be on the Talk page but now have a much better grasp of how to handle any future issues. Perhaps it's best, in most situations, not mention AN/ANI on article talk pages unless there's a pressing need to do so. @Gregkaye I'll make the redactions you've requested but I feel that your motives are go beyond "genuine concern". I hope we can bury the hatchet and get back to work on things like the series of maps project that got put aside before this all happened.~Technophant (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technophant there has always been a genuine concern. I see the very fact, given your history of conflict, that you needed input on aggression to be a sign that you may not be totally in touch with issues here. I would like to think that you will act cordially, proportionately and fairly with all editors here. These are wider concerns. Again, you have never been involved in the jihadist debate and yet, in short order after the issue had entered into a consensus phase, you added this post dismissing the whole debate claiming, "I've seen this issue drone on and on". Its just another loaded, biased, manipulative content which, due to context and timing, is also incredibly disruptive. I take your point about mediation but, in the current context, why couldn't you just let things run their course? For whatever reason it has been you that has carried the "hatchet". You that has made use of belittling, sidelining, defamatory and manipulative tactics. My hope is still that you can face up to these issues and conduct yourself on the page in a neutral, more neutral manner. I have genuinely been trying to assume good faith with regard to your actions. If that fails what other conclusions do I have? Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye, you are really taking this too far. You objections are laughable. I was asked to put some input in and I did. Just because things don't always go your way doesn't mean that everybody who doesn't agree with you is "vindictive". Your talk page shows a lot of different editors trying to either resolve things with you are asking you to back down. I'm going to have to do the latter in this case. ~Technophant (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant If you sincerely want to bury the hatchet as you describe that will be more than welcome. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye yes I really do. I happened to notice your request on PBS's talkpage to do something about my comments (you should ping other users when complaining about them on admin talk page). I feel like you are doing anything and everything in your power to make things more difficult for me as an act of retribution. Please stop. You're just making yourself look bad. You could start by withdrawing your request.~Technophant (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant I don't agree with the your presentation above. This is my mail on the talk page of PBS and your account, intentionally or not, can be read as being disingenuous with an incomplete description of an actual situation. As is apparent on the historical link provided above I had set up the pings and, amongst other content, stated "I would naturally ping the people mentioned but don't want to do that on your user page without permission." There is nothing in the content that I thought that editors might necessarily want to comment directly on but, as you know, the intended pings with full intention of notification. This I took as a clear example of you being disingenuous (but at the time of this text re-edit and, having listened to comment of our mutual friend and still trying to assume good faith, I have decided to consider this an oversight). I also noted that you had seen the edit yet have placed no comment.

Editor's can still read related comment on all above situations and come to their own conclusions relating to your comment: "You're just making yourself look bad". I regarded this as being characteristically prejudging and as being out of place. I cannot retract that I do have genuine concerns about the use of language like this and, to me, its use here leaves me with concerns as to whether you have taken the above content to heart. I have made an enquiry, in this case entitled "#Is this something collapsible or actionable?" in regard to your "alternate and dismissively worded proposal." I also presented a now edited comment that, "I regard this to be bad faith and disruptive while showing no (add: lacking) willingness to let things run their course." I certainly still think that, in the context, this has an unwarranted effect of disruption and my reasoning was to place this on an admin's talk page for nothing more than the reason to find out what action, if any, might be appropriate. If you think that no wrong has been done then you have nothing to worry about. 06:05, 4 November 2014, edited 06:21, 4 November 2014 and re edited after hopefully conciliatory discussion with P123ct1 Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gregkaye, you shut me out of the conversation on your talk page. I was trying to explain myself. If you take a chance later to re-read what was said the message is that User:P123ct1 and I respect you and want to keep the conversation going so we can at least be on good terms when discussing editing matters.~Technophant (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant Just to be clear, this was the state of dialogue on my page at the time of your last edit above in which you started with your instructions regarding the resolution of a misedit of yours; continued with your cryptic content of a pain related "riddle" that you seemed unwilling to explain; which you then claimed was related to my editing of the lead despite the fact that the conversation had concerned Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which is validated both by your initial comments and by another editors comment part way through; you then proceeded with content that was totally inappropriate in the context of a productive conversation that I had been holding with someone else, namely you came out with a whole range of non-specific allegations. This is phenomenally unhelpful with regard to potential resolution. Show diffs. Raise clear issues that can be reacted to accordingly. I finished with the question as to whether you had P123ct1's permission to share the information that you shared and whether it was in anyone else's interest other than your own to share it. I am still curious for an answer. I have now moved the content of this roller coaster of an interjection to Misrepresentations 2 the last content on my talk page to which you contributed to. Again was another thread that someone else had started that you seem to have felt at liberty to join. I am more than happy to discuss various matters but would prefer to do it without swings in the conversation, riddles, potential breaches of confidence and vague presentation of views. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technophant: As a result of discussion with our mutual friend @P123ct1: I would really like to make an attempt at reconciliation and would be really grateful if you can consider the effects of recent interventions regarding attempt to come to conclusion in the jihadism discussions.

Here is the flow of points in the recent discussion as I see it.

• I started with an OP that outlined all my relevant arguments and presented four potential routes forward.
• P123ct1 proposed an alternate solution and stated "Gregkaye has worked hard and constructively on this, and I think we should pay attention to his suggestions for alternative wording."
• A constructive discussion then ensued between the very knowledgeable editor, Jason from nyc, and I and this provided a good summary of objections and attempted refutations and this concluded on 01 November.
• At 14:40, 3 November P123ct1 broached the issue to try to bring things to a head according to WP:CONSENSUS
• At 16:27, 3 November 2014 I added seven lines of text by way of presenting a couple of proposed sets of wording.
• At 18:45, 3 November 2014 you added a proposal that presented an alternate route to the otherwise intended direction of the discussion and, as a for instance, you presented that, "I've seen this issue drone on and on". You here argue that "this issue has too many specialized components that requires in-depth knowledge of the Arab world, language, culture, and history." You then presented, "I haven't had any strong feelings either way".

After exerting considerable effort into work on this issue and for other topic related reasons I really felt like a knife had been stuck into me over this. I have been trying to present an issue in the hope, as I see it, to qualify an indirect and unwarranted support that Wikipedia is giving to the radicalisation of aspects of Islam which will result in the loss of liberty and death.

• On 4 November 2014 you then back tracked simply to restate arguments regarding modern day usage of words which bore no relation to the "specialized components" argument previously mentioned.

In relation to the US argument presented, the majority of people who agree with the values of democracy have no significant argument with the idea that the US is a democracy. The majority of the Muslim population of the world object to the idea that ISIL is faithful to Islam. A use is made of "jihadism" in the press by some RS and other RS call this use into question. Many sources condemn ISIL as not following jihad with clear reference made to Islamic text. There is no published thesis as to justify various of ISIL's actions that makes reference to Islamic text and I suspect that this is because, if it were, it would be shot down in a minute.

You have devoted a great amount of attention to this issue and have, from my perspective, greatly impeded momentum gained to move forward on this subject and, in context, it leaves me feeling greatly distressed. I first raised the issue of jihadism quite some time ago and then raised an actual debate regarding usage on 8 October 2014 in the thread starting "their actions are "not jihad at all". About a month later and after having been presented by another editor and after many ensuing battles the issue was finally raised as a proposal. It then took just over two hours for a counter proposal to be presented. This was done in a way that presented the prejudging view that the issue had droned on. You presented that "this issue has too many specialized components.." in a phrase that would, arguably, have the effect of discouraging people without "in-depth knowledge of the Arab world, language, culture, and history" from contributing on grounds relating to the representation of Islamic views. Never-the-less you then stated, "I've decided to go ahead and !vote to use it unqualified."

I really consider that your actions in this, their various timings and the positioning of your interventions to be deeply unfair. Like I say I don't hold grudges but I don't think that your inputs into this have been fairly handled. I don't mind straightforward disagreement presented in ways that don't add prejudging comments or similar effects.

Please consider the above. I don't know how you feel about the current situation. I also don't know if you understand the effect it has of my side of things.

At various points on the page I have been wronged, misrepresented and told that I am saying things that I am clearly not saying. Never-the-less, it has been left to me to try to gain reconciliation. In this I really hope that you can also play your part.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, I'm going to have to ask you to limit yourself on the length of talk messages your write. I'm not a very fast reader, and if I were to print out your average detailed post I'm pretty sure it would be over 1 page going on 2. I've been doing some PAG research and found a wikipedia shortcut that is new to me, WP:FILIBUSTERS. It's on the BRD not to list and I see that your are doing it on the ISIL talk page. Also, when it becomes easier to count the number of places where you haven't brought this issue up than have you just might be infringing on WP:FORUMSHOPPING (you know, just saying). I'll talk to you regarding the Jihadist issue and why it's important, but please pick one place and stick to it. I suggest either your talk page or User:P123ct1's if it's our personal views.~Technophant (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant Neither am I a fast writer. I wrote the above message following prompts by User:P123ct1 in an effort to clear the air and find a way forward.

Please don't deflect and detract from issues mentioned. If you have specific issues to mention on unrelated matters please raise them in specific and answerable ways in appropriate locations. You are always free to respond to actual content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned bare URLs in "Timeline 2" on my Talk page. I have given up on these. I once left a shame list of about 15 on the Talk page and they were gradually reduced, but they keep piling up and I will not convert any more. It is sheer laziness by editors. As the Wikiblame tool is broken, it is no longer possible to tell who the offenders are. When I knew who had left one, I would give them the footnote template I devised, but more often than not it was ignored. I raised this with Dougweller some time ago and he had no solution. I don't know what can be done about this problem. Sometimes an editor will come along and convert some of them using the replacement Reflinks tool, but it is not very good as it leaves out a lot of parameters and the editor will not fill in the missing ones. I don't think Reflinks will return, from what I have read on the Help Desk. I am shocked that there are now 46 bare URLs for the page. The most it ever was before at any one time was about 15. What is the solution? Removing edits when editors have left bare URLs? I would suggest getting an admin to do something about it, but when the editor cannot be traced, nothing can be done. As you noted, they are mostly in the Timeline section. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 If I could find a good tool that can handle them quickly I'd work on them more. Doing them manually is very tedious, however I've done quite a few. I think just taking an eventualist (it will be one day be corrected) view is perhaps the best thing to do. With modern news services very few of them will actually "link rot" like they did in the past. I'm thinking that if the Timeline is completely cut out of the main article only perhaps 1 in 1000 casual readers will ever see it and the quality of both pages will suffer.~Technophant (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some months ago I went through all of the footnotes (350 plus) checking they were accurately configured, so that is why I resent cleaning up new bare URLs (there were very few then)! They do get converted eventually by keen editors, but as you say it is very tedious to do now that Reflinks has gone. I am not sure if the new replacement tool collects them before converting or whether you have to use this tool on each one individually. I have been thinking about what you were saying about the Timeline and now agree with you about having some of it in the article. I will note this on the Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 I took your /My template and wrapped it in {{notice}} and put it in the talk page header here. Note: there's no recursive limit to transclusion. Many templates are based on other templates, which are sometimes build on other templates and/or WP:Modules (more complex hardcoded functions like the core citation function).~Technophant (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a brainwave, but I wonder if editors will pay any attention to it, excuse my cynicism. Could you put the text equivalent of flashing lights round it?! Would it be an idea to put it on the ISIS Talk page as well, or is that already overcrowded? Also, I notice the footnote reminder templates(?) at the head of the "References" sections have disappeared. Would it be in order to restore them, perhaps with a reference to those instructions? Anything to make editors take notice and stop leaving bare URLs. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you work on a shorter version? There may be an objection to a custom template. Perhaps there's already one available.~Technophant (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant: Do you mean a shorter version of the footnote instructions template? I could cut it down by five lines. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help page issues

P123ct1 yes, but since your User:P123ct1/My template "template" is "live" and being used in several places it's prob best to start a new one. Templates are based on transclusion, so any edit made the the template will change it's use everywhere it is transcluded. It would be better to use WP:substitution instead of WP:transclusion when placing on a userpage. I would suggest copying the wikitext into your sandbox or a new userpage like "/citations" or something perhaps more descriptive but not too "prescriptive" and we can work on it together. I haven't slept in 48 hours. I'm quite tired however I have a lot on my mind. I joined WP:WikiProject Help a few months back because I enjoy rewriting help pages. Surprisingly, my usual minor edits to commonly used template docs, and a small number of minor edits to a few guidelines, essays, and even two policy edits (regarding slurs against persons with disabilities) have not been reverted. You would think that with all the scrutiny on me, and all the people that should be watching, these pages that I would have at least have gotten a comment. I guess I'm doing something right for a change? :-] ~Technophant (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could change the name of the template after removing the five lines I mentioned, but I can't see how to make it descriptive rather than prescriptive when they are instructions on how to compose a footnote. I will adjust the wording and let you have a copy. I am glad you are working on the help pages; they drive me to distraction they are so bad, vague, missing essential steps in how to perform a function, confusing, etc. I always end up on the Help Desk, and I do mean always. The WP Help needs to be completely rewritten, IMO! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i saw your question on ar. wiki concerning the two armed men. These two are not members of the ISIS, as mentioned in the description, but rather members of the national resistance to the american forces in Iraq, that pre-dates the appearance of ISIS. For the future, you can always speak English to any user in ar. wiki, in case you don't know Arabic. Google translate is really horrible when it comes to translating full sentencs, some would have better luck understanding English than understanding the google trans. form of Arabic :) Anyway, almost every one in ar. wiki knows English, so you can gurantee you'll always be answerd. Best regards--باسم (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

باسم Thanks for the answer! Ar.wiki is hard to figure out. There doesn't seem to a AN/I type noticeboard there or much discussion in the Tea Room. I find it very difficult to cut and paste arabic, esp. with it wanting to be right to left. The image is being used at ISIL#as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with the caption "Pair of armed anti-American insurgents from northern Iraq". It's a good photo. Quite striking. ~Technophant (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested removing not striking as you have done. -- PBS (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS there's no pleasing you, is there? I can't remove my comments unless Gregkaye first removes his own. I've redacted the part that he objected to. I wish I hadn't written anything about the closing and just steered clear. I'm asking you as an uninvolved admin to place a temporary (+2 month) user interaction ban on User:Gregkaye. I will also leave him alone as well, but will may refer to his edits or ideas if the discussion requires it. ~Technophant (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was explicit in what I suggested. But is is of no consequence now because of the second of these comments. -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS I would appreciate discussion prior to action, either way, being taken. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't amend my edits as you did here Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of your wp:hounding! I'm asking any uninvolved admin to put a FORMAL temporary WP:IBAN on Gregkaye.~Technophant (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here. which also served to make the section disappear. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant, given the exchanges between yourself and Gregkaye today, you must have made this edit either to be provocative, or because your judgement is too poor to realise that it would be provocative.

Now with my administrators hat on. Enough! I am going to revert the edit. You are to stop editing anything to do with pages under the ISIL sanctions or User talk:Gregkaye for 24 hours. You are not to discuss Gregkaye's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum. You need time contemplate your actions, at the moment you are heading for a block or a ban. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you come back in 24 hours and continue where you will leave off now, I will take further administrative actions. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]