User talk:Alanyst/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Alanyst/Archive 2,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 11:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Opposing Speedy

Alanyst, I've posted the following on the RFC/U talk page opposing the Speedy. "Well, this is a good example of where IAR should apply. In other circumstances Speedy might be appropriate. But given the fact that MM's edits to Phase I met with some controversy, I think the pages should be retained for the time being. IMO they serve to document MM's post-48-hour-block behavior. Thanks." IOW, the page is part of the evidence. With this in mind, the speedy is not non-controversial. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I thought things might go that direction, and it's no big deal to keep it around I guess. I don't know that it provides much more evidence than what is available elsewhere, but since it doesn't appear to be listed as an active RFC anyway I suppose there's not much harm in it sticking around for a while. alanyst 19:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In the alternative you might archive it to discourage any post-closure commentary. (Not that I see that as being a big risk.) Once the arbcom or appeal is resolved we certainly should remove it. And I do applaud your effort. It was well done. We just did not have the right mix of personalities involved to make it work. (But then the right mix of personalities would not have gotten to the point were an RFC/U was needed!) Best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Alanyst,

You seem to be going to a lot of effort to add this evidence. I really appreciate it, and it has already proven useful wrapping my head around this. However, it looks like so much work, and I have to say it's unlikely I'll use more than 1/3 of it. The trouble is, I can't know which 1/3 until I'm in the middle of it. So if this is an intellectual challenge, and you want to continue, please do, I will definitely find it helpful. But if this is an annoying chore for you, I'm not sure the cost of your time and energy is worth the benefit I'm going to glean from it. Hopefully you read this message in the spirit intended; if it comes off as ungrateful, I've not made myself clear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, the "general note" on the evidence talk page does not apply to you; it's aimed at the parties submitting evidence against each other, not someone organizing links for me. I assume you'd know that, but wanted to make sure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, Floquenbeam. My chief goal was to provide a view of the dispute in a way that would let you and the rest of the committee reach whatever parts of it you thought deserved the most scrutiny, and to save you some time by weeding out the unrelated and minor interactions. I fear that I nevertheless provided too much information to digest, and yet I didn't want to restrict my analysis and thereby risk imposing my own views of the case.

But it makes me happy that you say it's already been useful to you. I don't regard the task as annoying, so please don't be concerned about that. What I would like to know is how I can best be of further assistance. I had contemplated delving into the userspace interactions but it seems harder to catalog those in a useful way than the BLP and project space ones. From my analysis I have also identified some strong patterns of editor behavior that I find troubling, but with the evidence phase otherwise closed, I'm hesitant to bring those forth and leave the parties without the chance to respond; and perhaps those patterns are evident to the committee already. Or, I could let what I've produced so far stand on its own.

So, my questions to you, Floquenbeam, are:

• Assuming I have the time and desire, is there an aspect of the dispute you would like to see analyzed? At what level of analysis? (Overview with links as I've been doing? Sample diffs or excerpts? Full narrative or chronology?)
• Is there anything you've seen in my evidence so far that you think didn't need to be provided (because too minor, not relevant, etc.)? I'd be happy to trim similar things out to make it easier to peruse.

I also have a procedural question that I'll pose at the workshop talk page, but I appreciate your feedback here and wish you the best (and my sympathies) in your efforts to reach a determination in this case. alanyst 06:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to see your thoughts on individual behavior; the main reason I was comfortable giving you freer rein to add a lot of new evidence is that it has been judgement-free, so no one could complain they didn't have a chance to reply. I can't bring myself to imagine what will happen if you started to document user behavior...

Don't pare down your evidence, but no, I don't think expanding it any more in the user talk area would be as beneficial. I've already got a rather overwhelming amount of reading to do.

Running in and out of the house today, but I'll look on the Workshop talk page in a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

See Floquenbeam under his new section "Learning Curve." "Workshop now closes on 23:59 23 February UTC, about one week after the last addition of Alanyst's evidence.' Might as well delete your comment quick. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Alanyst, I am surprised and disappointed that you would group me with the three individuals whose behavior and editing has recently been discussed on ANI. One real serious problem with WP is that reputations and interactions are too often shaped by casual observation, half-truth, and outright error. After having seen you painstakingly support the Arbitration by compiling factual data and helpful links, it's particularly distressing to see you drag me into this episode of dysfunctional behavior when there is no article or talk page edit I've made that is anything other than ordinary course here. Please reflect. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say any of you were specifically at fault; indeed, I explicitly said the point was not to apportion blame but to freeze the dispute. You have been one of the four core disputants and have continued participating in the topic area. Whether your behavior has been dysfunctional or not in isolation matters less than the fact that it continues to ruffle the feathers of the other parties and has had the practical effect of helping to prolong the dispute. Well-intentioned or not, your continued participation in the topic area (along with the other editors) has a disruptive effect and needs to cease at least until the arbitration proceeding has ended. alanyst 21:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the basis for your statements? What improper behavior of mine has contributed to the incivility or Srich's irritation. By the way, there are five of us. I presume you forgot about Binksternet. Frankly I don't think you are showing an appropriate level of concern for the lasting damage that can accrue to editors' reputations from these noticeboard discussions and the assumptions, assertions, and associations that are raised in them. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I took you up on your invitation to reflect. I also looked at your recent contribution history to double-check my facts. Just now at ANI I provided a modest list of pages in the topic area where you have engaged other parties to the arbitration in argument about content edits and about each other's behavior, since the arbitration case was opened. I am not saying anything about whether your behavior there was positive or negative; simply that you have not disengaged from the dispute. alanyst 04:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

::boggle::

Just what is "::boggle::"? The childrens game, or "This boggles my mind". We need to know b4 sanctions are sought. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The latter sense. It is an exquisite art to isolate words from context and usage from intent in order to infer an offense to oneself, and I was truly astounded by the mastery exhibited. alanyst 17:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you'll share with the Arbcom how you think your astonishment was relevant or helpful to the proceedings there? Because you appear not to have understood my point: We have identical "findings of fact" regarding me and Steeletrap, namely "self-evident bias" despite our very different edit histories and behaviors on WP. My concern -- not certainty, but reasonable concern -- that some readers may not sort out the welter of undifferentiated links in evidence hardly appears baseless. We also have a principle of this case that vague accusations should not be made. If you believe that there are no readers of that page who might, as I did, infer that "they" was another undifferentiated reference, I disagree with you. So, apparently did Iselilja, who unlike you graciously and straighforwardly helped to resolve the issue. Shame on you, Alanyst. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The last thing this project needs is for another personal conflict to be spawned from the Austrian economics dispute. We're on the verge of one here and we should both seek to avoid it.

I will try to understand your position. You are under the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee, a position which undoubtedly brings a fair amount of stress. You (as with most people) do not like to have bad behavior wrongfully ascribed to you; and being already under scrutiny you are particularly sensitive to any accusation or proposal that might unfairly reflect on you. You fear that you are being blamed for Steeletrap's behavior, and you saw enough ambiguity in Iselilja's use of "they" that you hastened to correct any possible misunderstanding in the reader's mind that you were also one of the referents of that pronoun. Is this a correct understanding of your viewpoint? Any important aspects that I've missed? alanyst 18:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's most of it. However your deadpan response to Srich's sarcastic remark about the matter is likewise not helpful. I won't go into what or why I think Srich was trying to accomplish with that post. There are several aspects of this case which have surprised me. One is the large amount of Evidence that linked to entire threads or pages without the kind of reasoned discussion documented by diffs which the Arbcom guidelines prescribe. Another is that the arbitrators have really given little indication that they sorted through the evidence and workshop content to arrive at detailed, discriminating, or nuanced conclusions. Finally, as relates to me personally, the evident confusion as to the locus of the dispute, ranging from Ellenct's very broad view to my rather narrow view that it relates only to the nexus of the Mises Institute, has barely been addressed and not yet been elucidated by Arbcom, despite the fact that we're already seeing votes recorded. All in all, I don't think it would require stress, personal involvement or fear to be concerned that the ultimate conclusions and remedies in the case will fully reflect the documented facts and factors. You may recall that on similar grounds I was an outspoken critic of the MilesMoney sockpuppet investigation brought by Adjwilley and a critic of various chaotic and arbitrary ANI proceedings, even in events where I did not defend the behaviors of those whom I felt had not received due process. I therefore feel that I can state my concerns with some justification, and without the appearance of purely self-interested motivation, that this Arbitration has not to date been conducted in a way consistent with stated Arbcom principles or in a way which would bolster community confidence in the thoroughness, truthfulness, and effectiveness of the proceedings. It's not over and that can all be made better, but it wasn't going in that direction and I hope you'll understand why I felt it important to speak up. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The chief reason I spent the time in the Evidence and Workshop phases to review and analyze the dispute was to present an objective view of the dispute in its entirety, neither focusing on individual grievances nor seeking merely to justify sanctions against particular individuals. I felt (and still feel) that such an approach would be more useful to the arbitrators in evaluating the dispute and reaching an evidence-based decision than the often-partisan presentations that involved parties tend to make. I can unequivocally state that I did my best to represent the dispute in a neutral and unprejudiced manner.

SPECIFICO, I would like to know if you understand my perspective on the dispute, and why I expressed (albeit poorly) astonishment at your remarks to Iselilja. Would you be willing to reciprocate by stating what you believe my perspective to be regarding these points? alanyst 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

To be very clear about something, no sanctions are going to be imposed based on Analyst's comment, and the suggestion they might be sought is not helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad for your note. alanyst 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This ought to be dropped, or if necessary taken up with the arbitrators at the proposed decision talk page. alanyst 22:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I appreciate your having left this comment, @Newyorkbrad:. Dare I say that this message from Srich might prompt a reexamination of the considerable evidence of his longtime disruptive behavior linked on the Evidence page? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Why is there a comment about my "longtime disruptive behavior"? (This is the third such comment I've seen lately.) There was no evidence (much less any diffs) about disruptive behavior presented or linked. Only in various discussions, such as this one, have we seen general, vague comments about supposed "longtime disruptive behavior". If Specifico feels the arbitrators have missed something, he ought to point to the specific, "considerable evidence" and "links", and do so on the Proposed Decision talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Forgive me, Alanyst, for this intrusion on your talk page. I asked about ::Boggle:: partly because of the particular ::layout:: of your comment. Perhaps you could hat this thread. My question was answered and I don't think continued commentary will be helpful to anyone. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Leave me out of your ANI remarks

Alanyst, there's no problem between Srich/Me/Bink that's worth mentioning at ANI and your nonspecific, undocumented, and irrelevant observations there are not helpful or supportive of any rational adjudication of Bink's complaint there. Bink has presented a detailed list of documentation and a clear description of his complaint. ANI doesn't benefit from a color-commentary which doesn't add any policy- or evidence- based contribution to the process. Please consider redacting your comment and stepping aside. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick update, we now have other editors, including Capitalistmojo and MrX joining the fray -- both with histories of interaction in the contentious areas edited by the 4 editors you cite. I really think that, if you're not prepared to give a complete, reasoned, and documented account of your views on this matter, it would be best to refrain from and redact any comments. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither this nor this are documented observations that are helpful or supportive of any rational adjudication of the complaint; they are not policy- or evidence-based and fail your own "complete, reasoned, and documented" test. Since you don't mind making such comments at ANI yourself, am I to conclude that your stated objections are proxy for a deeper concern that you have not yet stated? alanyst 17:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SPECIFICO, if you wish to be left out of ANI discussions involving these users, it would behoove you to stop involving yourself with them. Looking only at the diffs that Binksternet linked in his original ANI post, this one was on your talk page, a large number of them were on Talk:List of Bohemian Club members where you were participating in the RfC and chiding SRich, [1] [2] [3]. On Binksternet's talk page where Steeletrap was accusing him of Biting new users, you chimed in to support. You commented in support of Steeletrap (or in criticism of SRich) three times in this thread on Steeletrap's talk page [4] [5] [6]. You also made an appearance in the related thread on my own talk page [7]. On the surface it seems that wherever the dispute is, you are there also. You control your own actions, so please don't blame this on alanyst. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: You have your own conflicts and relationships in this matter, Adjwilley. I didn't make any statement as to my involvement or non-involvement in these matters. I only stated my view that the form and substance of Alanyst's involvement is not constructive. Moreover, participation in a thread is not the same as contentious dysfunctional interaction in that thread. You have misrepresented my behavior. More importantly, your statement that I am blaming "this" -- whatever on earth you mean by "this" -- on Alanyst is a Personal Attack on me and you should strike it. I'll reserve any further comments on your behavior in this affair. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: I just opened your links 1, 2, 3 from the Bohemian Grove RfC. Only one is from me. It makes no mention of any of the editors to whom Alanyst referred. I'm very concerned about your conduct in this matter, Adjwilley. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The links are these: [8] [9] [10]. All three are by you; the first is evidence of your participation in the RfC and the other two are evidence of your chiding Srich. Perhaps you were looking at the wrong links. alanyst 17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Specifico, "this" referred to you and SRich being mentioned in an ANI discussion about Steeletrap and Binksternet. I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you did not want to be pulled into that ANI, based on your statement that "there's no problem between Srich/Me/Bink that's worth mentioning at ANI" and the header for this section "Leave me out of your ANI remarks". Am I mistaken? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst: What is there in those links that indicates conflict or anything not germane to the topic of the RfC? I'd also appreciate knowing whether and how you respond to the full message I left you above. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I did respond above: the comment that starts "Neither...." alanyst 21:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a response to the concern I raised above. There was nothing inappropriate, contentious, or personal in my two remarks at the ANI, nor did I say anything hostile or supportive of either party. You seem to have misconstrued my remark above to indicate that only certain kinds of remarks are helpful at ANI. But my concern remains unaddressed. Are you interested in sorting this out, or not? You needn't be. If you'd like to, I will join you in doing so. It's your choice. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Boiling it down, is it fair to say your concern is: "I haven't done anything wrong, so lumping me in with the others at ANI is unfair and makes me look bad"? alanyst 21:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No. I think my words are clear and reasonably succinct above. Your initial response, in which you attempted to establish an equivalency between my statements of opinion and your undocumented and casual representations of facts concerning other editors, did not address my stated concern. I can't even parse the meaning of the sentence you've written immediately above. I think it would be helpful if you'd respond to what I stated initially. If you don't think I was clear, it won't bother me at all to hear in what respect I failed to communicate my concern. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Then please be specific: which representations of facts concerning other editors were "undocumented and casual"? I believe what I wrote was an entirely unbiased and pertinent summary of the history of conflict between the four of you whom I named; and documentation of those facts is easily ascertained via the link to the arbitration case. I still can't tell if your objection is that I brought it up at all, or if it is that I referred editors to the history without enumerating it then and there. alanyst 22:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Question re hounding

Alanyst, thank you for your contributions. I encourage you to return to the thread, and turn your sharp analytical mind to the question of "hounding," particularly as it relates to correction of objective errors (this is an absolute defense under WP:Hounding, which I have established, and no one has even addressed). The show-trial I'm being subjected to is ridiculous. Steeletrap (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It may be helpful to do that analysis here where there's a bit more breathing room, so to speak. I've made a new section for this in anticipation of further dialogue above and will attempt to present my thoughts below. alanyst 17:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Bink made three edits which I reverted. He explicitly admitted that the first of these was in error (this led him to erroneously accuse a noob of vandalism). He implicitly admitted that the third of these (which led him to accuse another noob of disruptive editing) was in error (see my evidence on the arbitration page). So those aren't really in question unless he retracts his admissions.

The second edit reinserted a general reference Bink had removed from an article on the basis that it wasn't used in the article. Per WP:Cite, general references are typically used at the end of the article without mention in its body. So removing it on this basis was wrong. (Srich -- who (as I'm sure you know) constantly follows me to various WP pages with little clear rationale -- tried to justify Bink's edit on the grounds that some hypothetical reason other than its (erroneous) stated rationale could justify it; I'm sure you will see through this bizarre reasoning.)

You are an analyst. You pride yourself on objective and even-handed appraisal of facts. Please explain to me how, as a matter of logic, HOUNDING applies to the three above-mentioned cases. Steeletrap (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's first examine the policy (below) and see if we agree on its abstract reading before looking at applicability to this case, if you don't mind. We'll get to the nitty-gritty presently. alanyst 18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What is hounding?

The section linked to from WP:Hounding says, in full:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Let's break it down. These are the elements that together characterize WP:Hounding:

• Singling out one or more editors
• Joining discussions on multiple pages/topics/debates
• Repeatedly confronting or inhibiting their work, or persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about them
• Apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight
• Disruption to the editor's enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason

Non-exhaustive examples are given of correct use of an editor's history:

• Fixing unambiguous errors
• Fixing violations of Wikipedia policy
• Correcting related problems on multiple articles
• Gathering evidence for dispute resolution processes

But these counterexamples to wikihounding appear to be subject to the clause carefully, and with good cause in order not to lead others to suspect ill motives.

Before we get into specifics of how this applies to Binksternet's complaint, are you comfortable with this re-formulation of the policy? alanyst 18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your summary, with one exception: The 'correcting errors' exception is not presented with any qualification. "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" is not only allowed, but "recommended." If one is only correcting unambiguous errors, it is implied that one is editing "carefully, and with good cause." (That is not a limitation on the practice of correcting unambiguous errors.) Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but to my reading, the 'correcting errors' exception is subordinate to the general statement that starts the paragraph in which it is found: "Many users track other users' edits .... This should always be done carefully, and with good cause to avoid raising ... suspicion." Correcting unambiguous errors and policy violations, fixing related problems on multiple articles, and gathering evidence for dispute resolution are all examples of allowed usage of an editor's contribution history that fall under "collegial or administrative purposes". But, if you are not amenable to this reading, shall we proceed with the analysis under both interpretations? alanyst 19:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

sure. Although I'm a concerned as to what your imposition of a qualifier on a categorical statement portends, I will assume good faith and go along. Steeletrap (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply trying to operate under all interpretations that reasonable people could subscribe to. I think both readings are reasonable though obviously not consistent with each other. alanyst 20:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How does it apply to Binksternet's complaint?

Now we'll talk about how the elements of the policy do or don't apply to Binksternet's ANI complaint. To begin with, it might help for you, Steeletrap, to indicate which (if any) of the elements of wikihounding you do acknowledge apply to your interactions with Binksternet. In other words, please indicate to which of the elements you are willing to stipulate:

• Singling out B beyond casual/coincidental interaction
• Entering multiple pages/discussions/topics because of B's contributions therein
• Repeatedly countering B's edits or arguments
• Giving the appearance of aiming to annoy or provoke B
• Causing B reduced enjoyment in editing without overriding cause

Also please indicate which of the following "correct use" exceptions you are willing to stipulate are not applicable here:

• Fixing unambiguous errors
• Fixing violations of Wikipedia policy
• Correcting related problems on multiple articles
• Gathering evidence for dispute resolution processes

Please note that I'm not trying to lead you into an admission of wikihounding (after all, I myself have in times past tracked an editor's contributions and entered discussions based on that, without violating WP:Hounding); I am simply trying to identify which elements need no further examination. Also, although you have basically answered some of these in your prior comments (e.g., "fixing unambiguous errors" is obviously still at issue), I'm including them for completeness and would appreciate your addressing them here too. Please feel free to elaborate on any of your responses if you like. alanyst 20:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes you are. You're asking me whether I did any of the things designated as hounding. This exercise is a farce (e.g. your misleading parsing of elements which are jointly sufficient to constitute hounding into individual categories) and I'm leaving. Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In my mind, you could (for example) stipulate to the first two bullet points without it being taken as an admission of wikihounding, since wikihounding would involve all elements and no exceptions. (I'm sorry if I was unclear on that point; I'm really not trying to suggest that any one of the elements in isolation entail wikihounding.) I realize you are wary of being manipulated or painted into a corner but I can only assure you I'm trying to be as analytical and dispassionate about this as you asked me to be. If you want to re-engage, I'm here. alanyst 21:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I'll try to make my case. (What else do I have to lose? I sincerely believe that if one person takes an honest look at this it will be immediately dismissed.) I was singling Binksternet out; I did follow him to pages, but I did not do so because of personal animosity. I only did so because he was making errors and personally attacking other users on the basis of these errors. My overriding cause were his unambiguous errors and personal attacks (false allegations of vandalism and disruptive editing; unfounded threats to be blocked; etc).

I think the "Binkie" stuff is a separate issue. So does Bink; all of the examples of "HOUNDING" he provides were weeks after I called him the B-word. I suppose some people think that my use of that word is sufficient grounds to ban me from the project. But the allegations of hounding are distinct (and spurious). If he wants to file an ANI against me on the nickname thing, he should do this. But conflating the issues is disingenuous. Steeletrap (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. If I read you correctly, you contend that the fourth element (apparent aim to provoke) is not satisfied and the first two exceptions (unambiguous errors, violations of policy) apply. The first and second elements (singling out, following to pages) are stipulated to, and I am uncertain regarding your position regarding the third and fifth elements. I assume the third and fourth exceptions are not applicable in your view; if I am mistaken please correct me. alanyst 21:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither the fourth nor the fifth element applies. My purpose was to correct Bink's errors. My "hounding" was instigated by his (admittedly, false) accusations of vandalism against another user. Per WP:NPA and WP:Bite, someone needed to step in. Steeletrap (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Here, then, is my analysis. I am sorry it took me so long to complete.

Examining each of the four diffs that B alleges demonstrate wikihounding:

• [11]
  • You told B that this edit of B's was a violation of WP:BITE in erroneously labeling two edits by an IP user as vandalism.
  • Context of B's interactions with the IP: The IP's first edit was in December 2013 to Doug Stanhope and was reverted at that time by B without violating WP:BITE; B left this non-bitey message at the IP's talk page noting that the material was unsourced. The IP editor quickly added [12] with a citation to allthingscomedy.com, and B did not subsequently revert. The IP reappeared at the end of January 2014 to add another name to the list of Stanhope's friends, and their entire contribution was removed by Everyking with the message "we don't normally include a list of friends". The IP editor restored the edits without discussion, upon which B again reverted and left the {{uw-vandalism2}} template message.
  • The IP's edit history shows it's a five-month-old SPA whose only edits are of the kind reverted by Everyking and B and who has not responded to the messages left for them.
  • The material added by the IP editor was not encyclopedic and merited removal, but did not constitute vandalism. B was justified in using a level 2 template since the IP editor re-added the material after being asked via a level 1 notice to use proper sourcing; but it should not have been a vandalism warning.
  • WP:BITE is a behavioral guideline and not a core policy. You were correct to tell B that calling the IP's edit vandalism was incorrect, but the magnitude of B's transgression in using the wrong level-2 template is minor.
  • Conclusion: Your message to B meets the technical definition of the first exception (correcting unambiguous error): the choice of {{uw-vandalism2}} was clearly incorrect.
• [13]
  • You reverted B's removal of a link that an IP editor added to the article's References section, saying the link was incorrectly removed under a misunderstanding of WP:CITE.
  • WP:CITE is a content guideline, not a policy, so the second exception (fixing violation of policy) is inapplicable.
  • The removal of the link is not unambiguous error. Another veteran editor (MrX) also removed the link as part of cleanup of the References section; good-faith disagreement over the propriety of the link is evidence against unambiguity. Furthermore, the link did not qualify as a WP:GENREF since it was not a source that supported content (i.e., no text was added to the article based on it); instead its actual relationship to the article best fits WP:FURTHER, and such links do not belong under the References section.
  • Conclusion: Your revert did not qualify as correcting unambiguous error or fixing a violation of policy.
• [14]
  • You commented at a talk page that "Binksternet rushed to judgment by saying that GrinSudan's insertion of 'anti-Islam' is unsourced and tendentious."
  • I can locate no comment or edit summary by B using the terms 'unsourced' or 'tendentious' in reference to GrinSudan's edits, prior to your remark to B.
  • You said, "Had he [B] taken three seconds to look at the source (not even click on the link, but just see the summary at the bottom of the WP page) he'd see that 'anti-Islamic' is repeatedly mentioned in the cited sources." B had twice reverted GrinSudan's change of 'Islamophobic' to 'anti-Islamic' in the lede. That text was cited to footnote 3, which at that time had seven references supporting it. Three of those have 'Islamophobic' in the title; one says 'Anti-Islamic'; one says 'Islam-bashing', one says 'Anti-Muslim'. By the balance of the sources, assuming all to be reliable, 'Islamophobic' was at least as correct as 'Anti-Islamic'.
  • Other veteran editors also objected strongly to GrinSudan's edits at the talk page, none of whom besides B did you criticize for WP:BITE or rushing to judgment.
  • Conclusion: Your remark to B was itself in error and did not correct an unambiguous error or policy violation by B.
• [15]
  • You left a message at B's talk page about B's interaction with an IP editor at Magic (Coldplay song): "It appears to me that the IP was correct to add rock to the genre of its new song. In any case, by accusing them of violating NPOV for doing that, you fail to AGF. Dropping that intimidating template, with the big red warning sign, on a new user is WP:Bite-y."
  • B had reverted an IP editor for changing the genre of the song from "Pop" to "Rock". B's edit summary said the IP's edits were good-faith but not supported by the source.
  • The cited source, Rolling Stone, said "The British rock group will put out their sixth album, Ghost Stories, on May 19th. To announce the release of the record, the band is streaming its second track — the easygoing and typically romantic pop track 'Magic.'" Though the band itself is a rock band, the song is classified by Rolling Stone as a "pop track" and thus B's version is correct.
  • B left a {{uw-npov1}} message on the IP editor's talk page, using Twinkle. That message is non-bitey, not intimidating, and does not have a big red warning sign. But the use of an NPOV template seems inapposite to the pop-vs-rock question, and would likely have been confusing to the IP editor in the context of the edits made.
  • Conclusion: Your remark to B was to correct an unambiguous error (use of a level 1 NPOV warning) but itself contained unambiguous errors.

As to the five elements of wikihounding, we have:

• Singling out: Stipulated.
• Joining pages/discussions/topics: Stipulated.
• Repeatedly countering or inhibiting work: Obvious from the analysis of diffs above: four occurrences of your objecting to or reverting B's actions.
• Apparent aim to provoke or annoy: You say that this was not your intention, but the actual intent is immaterial: it is whether there was an apparent aim; in other words, whether your actions could reasonably have been taken as aimed at provoking or annoying B. This is informed by your past behavior towards B: the dispute that led to arbitration, and your recent use of a nickname B clearly disliked. A reasonable editor at the time could have concluded that your interactions with B were not motivated by a suddenly helpful and collegial attitude.
• Causing reduced enjoyment of editing without overriding cause: B's complaint at ANI states that your interactions interfere "with [B's] enjoyment of participation at Wikipedia." Some of your interventions corrected minor errors but none of these amount to "overriding cause"; any of them could have been addressed by editors with a less fraught personal history with B.

Conclusions

I find that your behavior towards B has met all five elements of the wikihounding criteria.

Under the interpretation you favor, that correcting unambiguous errors and policy violations are absolute defenses against wikihounding, two of the cited interventions by you qualified as exceptions and two did not. This would make it a borderline case of wikihounding.

Under the other reading, that such corrections should "always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight," I find that none of the four cited interventions by you qualified as exceptions. Three of the four had clear errors by you (thus not done carefully), and the remaining one (vandalism template) was minor enough not to qualify as "with good cause". There is no evidence that you took extra care to avoid the suspicion of ill intent. Under this interpretation, your behavior was minor wikihounding, a bit beyond what I would subjectively consider "borderline".

In terms of remedy, the only sensible course of action, in my opinion, is a two-way interaction ban. There is no apparent goodwill or trust left between the two of you and so further interactions are bound to engender further disruptive conflict. Both of you make unforced errors but not to such an extent that monitoring each other's contributions and bringing each other to noticeboards will result in sufficient benefit to offset the poisonous atmosphere that will accompany such actions. A two-way IBAN would be the least punitive and most preventative resolution, so both of you can resume your editing under happier and less frustrating conditions, and neither of you would be left unable to respond to the provocations of the other. (One-way IBANs are widely viewed as highly problematic for this reason.)

This is my honest and unbiased analysis of the matter. You have stated that you believe no honest analysis could fail to support your position, and so I anticipate you may accuse me of dishonesty or partisanship on those grounds. If you feel that way, I invite you to ask an uninvolved and impartial admin to review my analysis to judge whether it is fair and sound. alanyst 07:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

[The] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Hello; because you commented in this discussion, I thought you might be interested in participating in this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap

Since you know that she doesn't value your opinion or advice, why not follow my lead on her talk page and reserve comment on her current concerns. There can't be anything constructive about unsolicited advice. Perhaps you're familiar with Machiavelli's words on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I think your advice is wise. No point in further direct interaction. alanyst 18:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yasin al-Qadi

Thank you for considering this BLP page and our earlier comments on it. Following your initial amendments to the page on 5 July, we should be grateful if you would also consider the other element of our Edit Request from 19 June, regarding the inclusion on this page of an image of the World Trade Centre attacks. Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the image on BLP grounds, though not without some hesitation. To the extent that it suggests culpability in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, I agree that the BLP policy weighs against its inclusion in the article. However, the allegations of al Qaeda links (valid or invalid; I do not offer an opinion here) are such a notable part of Mr. Kadi's life story that one could argue the photo is illustrative of the event that triggered the sanctions against your client. As you can tell, I have chosen to err on the side of caution regarding the photo, and have removed it on those grounds.

Regarding the rest of the article, I have long felt it to be bloated and full of innuendo, reliant in some places on poor sources, and out of date. I have begun a slow process of rebuilding the article, starting with a careful examination of the sources cited in the article to cull them for objective facts and to evaluate their overall reliability according to Wikipedia's standards. This will take quite a while due to other real life obligations commanding my attention, but I do intend to see it through. You may follow my progress in this task at User:Alanyst/sandbox/Yasin al-Qadi. If you have knowledge of other reliable sources that discuss your client that are not found in the current version of the article, please suggest them on the main article's talk page so they too may be evaluated. alanyst 13:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

We note that you have begun to rebuild the article using a sandbox page, and should be grateful for your continued efforts with this. We anticipate proposing additional sources and amendments on the discussion page, with a view to improving the article’s accuracy further. Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I note from your comment of 11 February 2016 that you are reviewing our edit requests of 4 and 10 February 2016, and I should be grateful for your feedback in this respect. I will shortly be posting some further suggested amendments on the Talk page of this article, which I should be grateful if you would also kindly review.Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for considering the request concerning the presentation of Mr Kadi's name in this article. I have posted some additional edit requests on 4 March 2016 to the article's Talk Page, and should be grateful if you would also please consider these proposed revisions.Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)