User talk:Doc9871/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Isn't WP great!?

A grotesque little witch hunt this has become. Isn't WP great!? One gets to make unaccountable and officious statements at the low end of the totem pole in a jurisprudential venue without backing up a whit, and walk away as smug as a bug in a rug! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My interactions with DP go back to a time that was before you even got here.[1] Oh, and we've had our differences; he even threatened to block me once (not digging that diff up). But I got over it. And while he's certainly not perfect, I really don't think he should be desysopped as "the only option".

I put very little stake in your opinion of what a "suitable" admin is. You really seem to not like any of them; and some of those that you find "unfit" are, in reality, some of the most well-respected admins on the site.

If there is a "low end" on the totem pole here, I'm further from that end than you are. I therefore have arguably more right to comment there than yourself. Cheers Doc talk 07:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

some of the most well-respected admins on the site. By whom? Admin buddies? Those they've nom'd at RfA? Admin wannabees? And even if your answer were miraculously, "the community of editors", duh, I tend to think for myself, not "follow the crowd" which you apparently think is some sort of virtue (odd, seeing the overall environment is basically corrupt & dysfunctional here). About your generalizations about what I think, you don't know, but you like to insult. Why don't you go join Kudpung's anti "anti-admin brigade" campaign (if you haven't already). Your "witch-hunt" name-call clearly belongs on the bottom of the pyramid, so I have no idea your basis for claiming any superiority re anything I presented at the case page. And as far as your long-standing acquaintance w/ DP, what has that got to do whether he meets minimum standards at WP:ADMINACCT or not?! What's your favorite cheese, Swiss!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you here? What result are you looking for, other than to aggravate (grief) our host, Doc9871? Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The wall of "inspirational quotes" on the user page says it all. Looking to right great wrongs and change things in a really big way. Good luck with that. Doc talk 09:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. (If I did that, or was here for that, I'd be an "activist", and I'm no activist nor have I ever been here or in any other context. Plus the "wrongs" you refer to are multitudinal, and mostly observations of the dysfunctions in WP, and always by others not me. Plus many are just interesting, paradoxical, or simply I thought they were funny. The list is for my own purposes for relaxation & humor, and also to feel good about being part of an org where there are many insightful and intelligent persons.) Though, I have mentioned idea for cure for all of what ails WP, even at Jimbo's Talk -- a restructuring engineered by the people who know both the problems & their solutions -- the site's top 10 content creators !voted by the community. (But that's not activism either, it's just saying what after awhile is obvious to me is the best [and perhaps only] way out of the dysfunctions and to an efficiently positive future re what the WP is supposed to be -- a set of quality articles.) You continually attack me as being negative Doc, but all the negative things I have to say about admins are based on first-hand experiences with those individuals, and how they treated me personally, I don't form opinions outside of my own experience with them, and I happen to trust my own experiences. And that includes with you, which experiences have been mixed, but at some point tilted downward, especially after a series of attempted smears against me on noticeboards, like in your labelling mischaracterizations above. I came here to in my own way attempt to disuade you from making bottom-of-the-pyramid insults where your nose doesn't belong if that is the kind of contribution you intend to make in a place like DP Arbcom case. (Of what intelligent value is your hissing & moaning?!) But see that's the culture here at WP that you are apparently proud of and participate in and defend and propagate (your values), so, we really have nothing in common then, do we. (If & when I make insults I make sure first I can back them up. After having holes shot into your statements and accuses, you just go on making more. The environment here is corrupt & dysfunctional, i.e. your perfect playground. [Not mine. I disown it. And for good reason.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your continued whinging at the Panda thing is just revolting.[2] No evidence, just a bunch of hateful rhetoric. You would absolutely never stand any sort of chance of adminship on this site with your toxic little attitude. You are about to be one of the select few I have ever banned from my talk page. You're a smart guy; but you're not someone I want picking admins around here. Piss off now. Doc talk 06:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding incivility and related user behaviors. The thread is Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:DIVA. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, could you please lay off and let others have their say without being badgered? If you persist in your pattern of behaviour you will either be blocked or subject to a topic ban from WP:DIVA-related pages. There are loads of other things to work on and you have given this enough now. Thanks for your cooperation. --John (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What, pray tell, is a diva "related" page? Any page a diva edits? Doc talk 00:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@John:, please note [3]. This editor continues to insult me as if he's allowed to and I am muzzled. I am getting mighty tired of being baited and goaded by this individual, and I think he needs to be warned to stop dragging me through the mud on multiple pages. Please note the reason for and duration of the block in his block log. Thank you. Doc talk 20:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've asked SMcCandlish to walk away from this and I suggest you do the same. This will all look a lot more soluble after you stay away from it for a few weeks. --John (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he's going to "walk away", because apparently he can still badger and rehash his argument ad nauseum when I've been warned to stay away. Seeing some favoritism here, but that is also not surprising to me. If he keeps talking "smack" about me and my motivations I will take note. Cheers :> Doc talk 22:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Activist is an interesting essay. Needs some work? No labeling, right? "As a professional free expression activist starting in 1993, I learned a healthy suspicion about political correction arguments used to censor and thought-police other people." This character is a "professional activist". Go figure! Doc talk 09:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, first you jump onto the Richard Ramirez article, which you have never edited before today but know damned well is my 3rd most edited article. Coincidence? And then you jump back into the Diva mess you created. I know you like to battle. You've been blocked for it and recently topic-banned for same. Do not poke the bear. You go off and do some behavioral pattern research now. Doc talk 10:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OWN and WP:VESTED. Who has edited or not editing an article before has nothing to do with whether the edit should stand or not. I'm not the one battling here; you appear to be following me and reverting whatever I do for the short term, on the same basis as your previous behavior: as assumed greater "right" to the page. And continuing to resist already-closed consensus discussions that didn't go the way you liked. Yes, these are clearly patterns.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You're playing with fire. You better know when to recognize this. Doc talk 10:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You're also clearly a very intelligent editor who is a definite "net positive", as they say. You can't spread yourself too thin, however. No one can know everything about this place. Trust me when I say I have more experience in identifying and dealing with the baddies than you do. We're on the same team, really. Analyzing my behavior patterns is a totally fruitless endeavor. No hard feelings. Cheers. Doc talk 10:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But... you can't leave well enough alone.[4] Let's go over it again, for the "50th time". Blocks for battleground behavior for you: 1. Blocks for anything for me: 0. Topic bans for you for filibustering and battleground behavior: 1 (active). Topic bans for me for anything: 0, ever. Keep it up, you expert in behavior patterns. Doc talk 11:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. I haven't mentioned you on ANI, but I have linked here to a post of yours, with a comment. I'm certainly not asking you to respond, but it's probably the civil thing to inform you. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC).

Your edit summary was not very civil if directed towards me, and I can't see how it wasn't. But I know how it is for cabal members vs. peons like me when it comes to the civility policy, so it's all good. Thanks for the notification! Cheers ;> Doc talk 22:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Trump's ethnic cleansing

Nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
George Will, notable Conservative pundit, is the one whose view is that Donald Trump has proposed ethnic cleansing. I would never myself express an opinion in an encylopedia article. I merely voted that we add Will's highly notable opinion. This is in reference to his deportation plan of over 20 million Mexican-Americans, over half of whom were born here. Considering the amount of force one would require to deport 20 million human beings (hint:the military would most certainly be required), Will is by no means wrong or expressing an idiosyncratic view in accusing Trump of advocating ethnic cleansing, or a forcible homogenization of the population. Ethnic cleansing need not imply that Trump has promised to kill anyone, only that he has promised to "make America more ethnically homogenous again", by force. Have a pleasant day.NobleHumanBeing (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC) You're a SPA sock pushing your opinions. I could care less what you think, since you don't have the decency to stick with one account. Bye. Doc talk 18:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC) I am no single purpose account. Perhaps you are unaware of my excellent work on the Coal page. I contain multitudes. This was never about what I think, and only about the Truth. NobleHumanBeing (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Piss off. You are totally full of crap. Doc talk 18:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

HoorayForAmerica

I've removed your recent posts and the responses from this user's Talk page. Your advice to evade his block was unconstructive at best. Don't do that again.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "Don't do that again"? You think I was actually encouraging sock puppetry? Inciting a riot? Your censorship of my comments is quite off. Don't do that again. Doc talk 13:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

See this "recommendation" by you. If you think that is not encouraging block evasion, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. Even the blocked user reacted negatively to it because of policy. You can adopt whatever attitude you like, but consider this a warning. If I see you do something similar again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you were actually encouraging sock puppetry. I don't think any reasonable reading could come to any other conclusion. When the community decides somebody is not welcome then you do them a disservice by suggesting sockpuppetry. As it stands the user has a chance at the standard offer, that chance drops to zero if they take your advice. Please don't encourage blocked people to edit Wikipedia.

I am only posting here because your response was to admonish Bbb23. Please make no mistake here, Bbb23's warning is correct and actionable. The removal of your advice was also correct. Your advice was disruptive to both the community and the blocked user, you have been here long enough to know that. HighInBC 16:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about Leona Helmsley

[5] 178.232.18.97 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision and for making two reverts, in violation of the sanctions (including WP:1RR) already in effect on the page Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You blocked me for an entire week for that?! My first ever block here! I'll wait this one out as a "martyr". Unfuckingbelievable. Doc talk 21:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Doc, I'm sorry you were blocked. Did you see this edit notice warning when your reverted?- MrX 21:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A week for that second revert? I've been here for over 8 years and I've never been blocked except for once as a mistake. This is total bullshit. Doc talk 21:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Given your completely combative attitude and unapologetic responses, a week was definitely warranted. I don't think you even slightly grasp how wrong your actions were on such a highly visible page, on such a contentious topic, and with active Arbitration Committee remedies in effect. We don't just place page restrictions for fun, we place them to prevent exactly the type of disruption you were replicating on that page. I would have considered lowering it to 24 hours if you showed signs of changing your behavior, but that's simply not going to happen now. Good day, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You count two "reverts" as if the first one was not actually an attempt at removal of poorly-sourced and contentious BLP material. I made an edit [6] - does this actually count as "Revert 1"? It can't count as a revert under 1RR or else no one would be allowed to remove anything at all. My "change" was "reverted" by another editor, and I then violated 1RR [7]. I made 1 revert, not 2, and was punished quite unfairly when considering my block history and tenure here. Not only that, hours passed and many other edits were made before I signed off. There was no threat of "combative behavior"... yet I was blocked for an entire week, as if it was warranted as a preventative measure. You made a terrible block that is both excessive in length and punitive in nature. I don't care what you think as you are clearly not an admin I have respect for. And I've seen quite a few of them in my time here. Doc talk 22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, you've been here 8 years and don't know what a revert is. Allow me quote the policy for you: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." As your first edit was the removal/reversion of previously added content, it is considered by policy to be a revert. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

An important exemption to 3RR (or 1RR) is: "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." I said that the material was biased, as were the sources. I was clearly acting in good faith. Doc talk 22:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." That process happened, and everything was worked out on the talk page. See [8]. The other editor acknowledged and understood my BLP concern. There were no more reverts and the content was restored. And... then this block happened. Why? Apparently BLP does not apply to that article since anything already there is incapable of being reverted, even if it's possibly biased and/or poorly sourced. This egregious "type of disruption you were replicating on that page" that you speak of. That would be removing... anything at all? Even once? What if it's a BLP violation? Doc talk 23:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The page restrictions are very clear, and you violated them. Did you just decide to not read them, or did you think you could just wikilawyer your way out of the inevitable block? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone has a BLP concern at that article and removes what they feel is contentious/biased/poorly sourced content, it is a violation of 1RR right off the bat to do that because it is "the removal/reversion of previously added content". Correct? Doc talk 02:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll ask you again: did you or did you not read the Arbitration Committee page restriction in the editnotice? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? With this edit[9]: where did this editor "obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits." Hey... guess what? They've never even edited the talk page at all. Ever. Go figure! But that info can stay, right? Unchallenged, at that? Hogwash. Doc talk 03:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So I'll take that as a yes. Which means you knew you were deliberatly violating those page restrictions when you made those edits. That's extremely out of line and such behavior will not be tolerated here. You can continue to try to divert the discussion here away from yourself, but with this now out in the open I don't think any administrator would even consider unblocking you. And as there clearly isn't a chance of you comprehending what you did wrong anytime soon, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Good day, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You're telling me that that editor, who never bothered to achieve any sort of consensus before making that contentious edit, gets to have whatever they want in the article stay there? A BLP, no less, under severe sanctions?! And when anyone dares to challenge it, it's a revert to be sanctioned?! "Extremely out of line" behavior? How the heck can you not see the blatant hypocrisy of that position? You're just wrong. Straight up wrong. Doc talk 05:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

And your block log. You were blocked for: "Edit warring: and misuse of admin tools: restoring contested edit to policy page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion despite full protection due to edit-warring about that content." You should have been blocked a lot longer than 24 hours for misusing your admin tools. Maybe at least a week, even. And I should respect you? Doc talk 05:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently another editor was also concerned that you were handing out week-long blocks without any proper warnings.[10] Hmm. You also hand out blocks "for failure to gain the required consensus before making those edits"[11]... but apparently only when you feel like it. It's really amazing that you'll admit to blocking without even being able to "find" a 1RR violation: and then ask other editors to provide any diffs that would be "helpful". Wow. Did the editor I reverted get blocked for failure to gain the required consensus before making those edits? Nope? Guess the material stays then. Doc talk 06:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Doc, you do realize that your comments are accomplishing nothing except perhaps to the extent that venting makes you feel better. It never does any good to snipe at the blocking administrator. Other administrators reviewing the situation want the editor to focus on their own conduct. You can think whatever indignant, outraged thoughts you like, but articulating them here rarely has any effect on the sanction, and often the opposite.

In the context of edit-warring, claims of BLP exemption are generally dismissed by administrators. The supposed BLP violation has to be egregious, just as a claim of vandalism has to be obvious. Your claim that the Washington Post and New Yorker pieces aren't reliable because of the nature of the articles is at best attenuated. Interestingly enough, although you mentioned the unreliability in the RfC, you didn't actually say it was a BLP violation to include the material. I also noticed that BLP issues weren't the basis for any oppose to inclusion of the material. They were generally based on noteworthiness.

As for the 1RR breach itself, in my view it is a violation. Your apparent belief that the first revert doesn't count is hard to support in this context. You removed material that had recently been added and was the subject of dispute. That's clearly a revert, and, yes, that would mean that you wouldn't be allowed to do another revert in the same 24-hour period.

I don't know if these comments are going to help or make you more angry. If they do the latter, I'll bow out as that wasn't my objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, your comments are not going to make me any more angry. You're an admin I respect, and for good reason. I'm seriously considering just deleting my account. I've had a good run. Admins like Coffee are utterly demoralizing. I think I might just be done here. Doc talk 13:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You should never leave over one incident unless you were already predisposed to leave and the most recent issue just tipped the scales. A lot of editors retire (as you know, technically your account can't be deleted) and then come back, sometimes fairly quickly, sometimes not so quickly. My opinion is the best thing to do is take a break. It can be as long or as short as you wish, but it would help put Wikipedia into perspective. Anyway, your decision of course. Just think about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. No organization is perfect, least of all this one, and we all get frustrated on occasion. Take this short block in the spirit in which it is intended -- as a time-out, not a punishment. (Really, it is.) Have a stiff one, go to a movie, read a good book. See you next week. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

When I take a break, which isn't often enough, I don't even look at Wikipedia. Enjoy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not seeing any "firm consensus" that the information ever had the right to be there to begin with. Comments like this[12] back up my position completely. I maintain that simply because it's Trump, who is widely vilified by any "enlightened" individual to be anything but an absolute moron, the rules of BLP do not apply. If half oppose the inclusion and half want it, is that a "firm consensus" to include it? Probably in this case. Doc talk 06:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got Satan The Prince of Darkness (talk · contribs) "commenting" there, with editors actually responding. It's a total joke. Doc talk 06:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Satan begone! Notorious sock master. Thanks for the heads up. Shouldn't you be at the movies or reading a book?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to see this gem, but I missed my flight to Cannes. Thanks for getting Satan! Doc talk 12:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The content was removed again on May 19th.[13] It's now May 23rd. No one was blocked for removing it, it's not been re-added, and no "firm consensus" has developed on the talk page for its inclusion (which should have happened before it was added). Why am I still blocked? If I want to take a Wikibreak I will, but this is ridiculous. Doc talk 06:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

My first (and probably last!) BLP

My interest to create George R. Dekle, Sr. came from the chess variants side (of course!). Am curious, how you got *your* interest in the Bundy article. I see it's been quite long-term, too. Ok, IHTS (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I read The Stranger Beside Me in the early '90's and was intrigued by the case. The article's come a long way since I first edited it.[14] Doc talk 09:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow. (The improvement.) I've a friend who also read Stranger Beside Me ~ same timeframe as you (I haven't read it), who kept supporting me to finish the BLP I did ... That book must be a page turner!? (Maybe I'll read now.) IHTS (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

On "Outing"

@Bishonen:, I'm not going to pursue it at AN/I, and I fear you'd delete a thread on your talk page, so I'll ask you here. I also fear that you may ignore this thread, but that would be something that a good admin should not do. You are, after all, an administrator, and I think it's imperative that we clear something up in regards to policy.

Now then, here you say: "Linking an account and an IP amounts to revealing real-life information about an editor, because IP's carry some RL details."[15] Where do you see this stated in policy, specifically? Doc talk 08:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

What Bishonen said is correct: IP address can carry information about their users' geolocation. This, I believe, is why checkusers (who can see users' IP addresses) are discouraged from publicly linking users to specific IPs. (See Wikipedia:CheckUser#IP_information_disclosure). ~Awilley (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Awilley. I fully understand why CUs won't publicly link IPs to named accounts. I was pointing out that unofficially linking a named account to an IP is not only not prohibited or even discouraged; it's the purpose of many SPI reports. You certainly don't need a Checkuser to establish sockpuppetry. Linking users to specific IPs is done all the time - the major difference is the "public/official" part. The WP:SOCKTAG instructions have 1 place for the sockmaster, and separate sections for named and IP accounts because sockmasters obviously use both. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Specifics re: BMK

Re: "Aside from the warning you suggested: what are you seeking to... "happen" to BMK as a result of this thread?" Other interested parties should participate in the discussion and reached consensus. No one else (other than you) has discussed it yet. Once others, specifically admins, participate, discuss, reach consensus, and close the discussion, I will reply here as specifically as I can. Furry-friend (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't file an AN/I report without a specific remedy for editors to consider. You seriously don't get it. Who do you think you're dealing with here? I suggest you chiggedity-check yourself before you wreck yourself. Your report is going absolutely, 100% nowhere. Doc talk 11:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/ANI:

Please read before opening a case at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for reporting and discussing incidents about an editor's conduct on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.
*You will need "diffs" (links) that illustrate the problem being reported.
*Before posting a grievance about a user please consider discussing the issue on the user's talk page.
*Do not report issues requiring oversight (enhanced deletion of content). Instead, send an email to: oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org

Could you please link to the policy that says "You can't file an AN/I report without a specific remedy for editors to consider"? Furry-friend (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the fourth time I'm asking you this incredibly simple question. In the AN/I you state: "I believe the multiple AN/I clearly show a pattern of violation of WP:CONDUCT through personal attacks, edit-warring through abuse of the WP:BRD process, and general civility issues, which require preventative measures." He sounds like a monster. Now, here go again... "What preventative measures do you recommend?" Do you understand the question? If I have to ask you the same question for a FIFTH time, your case is in serious trouble. Doc talk 11:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You asked, I answered, you asked for more specifics, said I'll give more specifics after consensus has been reached, you said AN/I can't be filed "without a specific remedy", I showed W:DSR/ANI has no such requirement. Furthermore WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE has no such requirement. Can you show me where this requirement is made? If you will politely wait for others, in particular admins, to discuss, reach consensus, and close the AN/I, I will reply here as specifically as I can. Furry-friend (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Shaddap. I replied at AN/I. Don't come back here. Doc talk 11:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't say I'm familiar with the requirement that one request specific remedies when filing an ANI report; that doesn't match my experience with the place. Unless you're planning to fight every editor in that thread you might consider taking a step back. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

God, you people... Listen. I didn't say it was required. At no point did I use the word "required". I said you "can't", as in logically you can't file a complaint without even recommending what should happen and expect to have a successful report. I hope he gets off just on procedural error. Don't you come back here either. Jeez. Doc talk 12:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad history?

Hi Doc, I couldn't help but notice your comment at User talk:Mr rnddude that I have a "bad history" with you and that I "threatened you" because of it. I have no recollection of any such history (and, in fact, I have great respect for you as a very experienced editor), and I certainly did not intend my comment to come across as threatening (and I apologise if it sounded that way). I simply wanted to clarify the requirements for posting at ANI and to try to defuse the escalating aggression that I was seeing. Best regards - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

We're good - sorry I was getting increasingly testy and it was time to log off for me because of it. We don't have a bad history. Cheers :) Doc talk 03:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I'm relieved to hear it ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please help me?

Hello Doc, could you please extend me the courtesy of reading the last few short entries on the Kingdom of Ulidia talk page, particularly, the one Mabuska left after you closed his complaint against me and my response. What can I do to bring this vile, disruptive nonsense to an end? I'm at my wits end. I thought we were all going to proceed to mediating are content issues on the Wikipedia Article page with help of Oshwah. User:Albiet

I'll give it a look. In order to properly sign your name at the end of posts, you must type a space followed by four tildes. This would be ~~~~. It took me awhile to get it too. Doc talk 04:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc, thank you for the info and your interest. Albiet (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)User:Albiet

Thanks for jump starting the mediation. Albiet (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Albiet

No problem! Let's practice the signature again. All you do is type the four tildes, and you don't need to add anything else at the end. No need to Copypaste your name anymore. Just the 4 tildes. Try it for me. Doc talk 12:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Or just press the button that says "Sign your posts on talk pages" and it'll automatically do it for you. Like so, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why, yes indeedily! I never saw that until just now. It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out the tildes thing when I started. Cheers ;) Doc talk 15:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Learn something new everyday. In any case; No problem :) Mr rnddude (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. FWIW, I would ask me about SPI over Softlavender if you want decent advice. Doc talk 15:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You stalk far too many pages Doc, but, I'll bite, what interesting piece of advice or news do you have. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I actually know what I'm talking about in SPI matters, unlike Softlavender. For a start. Doc talk 15:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I recognize SPI isn't particularly easy to prove or even start, CU won't go after nothing and comparing two users is basically detective work. That, is probably the grand sum of my knowledge about SPI. Oh, and we ban confirmed sockpuppets that violate the rules. That too. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender is not a detective-type. I've done actual detective SPI work. You need diffs. Lots of good diffs. Not just assurances that there's "plenty of evidence". If a SPI case is a "slam-dunk" a good investigator can come up with some choice diffs on command that would convince even a skeptic. Doc talk 16:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, Softlavender's continued passive-agressive ignoring of me is a very bad sign from any editor. Extremely unprofessional. I wouldn't listen to anything they have to say. Doc talk 16:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You've done SPI work, I swear it has to be like the forensic investigation unit of Wikipedia. I'm just your average snooper, I have no equitable skills either. What I was hoping to do was pin their first interaction and trace their connections from there. The thing that I find odd, though not impossible, is that they never met anywhere prior to AfD. The earliest interaction (that I have found), 19th and 20 May 2016 at the AfD for Renegade Party. They don't seem to actually interact properly anywhere except, they've put one barnstar on each others page, AfD's (especially against HappyValleyEditor) and of course AN/I. That strikes me as, suspicious, and of course "when I get suspicious about a new account, you better believe I'm going to ask a few questions". Mr rnddude (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I know you and Softlavender don't get along, the thread directly above mine on their page is quite indicative of that. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender should know a lot better. There is nothing more insulting than being ignored. It's incredibly unproductive, and it will reflect on them poorly. Doc talk 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but, would you rather combative or silent? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Combative, actually what a stupid question, at least you can respond to combative. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And Softlavender knows this. Very rarely do I encounter this level of hostility, and even more rarely from a seasoned editor. What a shame. Doc talk 16:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried burying the hatchet? awkward as it may be. Actually what set it off? this a long-time issue or a recent development? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've dealt with all sorts here. The best, the worst. As I said before, there is nothing more insulting than being ignored as if you didn't exist. Especially when you know you're dealing with an experienced editor in good standing. So Softlavender can basically expect to get her ass handed to her if she oversteps her bounds. Doc talk 16:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's one way to end a dispute, send a warning threat to them, that'll teach 'er a lesson. Doc, I recognize you're insulted, greatly, I'd be too. It's not worth banging your head over, she doesn't want to talk to you, who cares. You've got a lot of different things to do around here and many people to help. Focus on that, I'd have fared a lot better somedays if I just skipped a pointless argument and went and did something productive instead. Shockingly I'm turning to BMK here, "Just let shit go", written in big words on his talkpage, why? "because life is too short". In any case, I have to depart for now, see you later Doc, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleting your AN comment

Sorry about that- had an edit conflict n the phone and didn't realise I erased your post! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh - I know. No worries ;) Doc talk 11:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

1RR

Your recent editing history at Donald Trump shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The article is under a 1RR restriction. You have now made 3 reverts in just a couple of minutes. Please self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hang on. If I "self-revert", wouldn't that get me in some sort of trouble?! You can't just add blogs as RS's just because you think you know what a RS is. You have no business passing off your edits in the Trump realm as unbiased. It's a joke. Doc talk 08:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Self-reverts fall under WP:3RRNO, but, I don't think that was the point you were trying to get across. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE

[16] Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You actually think "Shut up. Signed: everybody" is a "very explicit personal attack". Your opinion is really not of any use to me. Please move along. Doc talk 09:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

And your little request for "a two week block from editing as well as a topic ban from anything related to Donald Trump and the ongoing presidential election, broadly construed"? Pathetic and not going to happen. Doc talk 09:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Telling a constructive editor to shut up (or indeed "Shut. Up.") is offensive. Claiming that you speak for "everybody" in doing so is ridiculous, as well as being even more offensive.[17] If you think avoiding calling Volunteer Marek actual names means you're not personally attacking him, you're mistaken. I agree with him that you're personally attacking him. And I'm glad to see you have received a discretionary sanctions alert. If you persist in your aggressive personalized posting on article talk (or elsewhere, for that matter), you may be topic banned from Donald Trump-related pages. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC).

It is not a personal attack to tell an editor to "shut up". Period. End of story. Doc talk 10:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're looking to settle the score, Bish. You are absolutely biased against me and should truly have no part in the AE. I couldn't even name a handful of admins that want to get me more than you. Really sad. Doc talk 10:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't realized that some of your worst talkpage posts[18][19] were made after the discretionary sanctions alert that you removed so swiftly (if you didn't give yourself time to read it, that's your problem). You have been topic banned, please see below. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC).

You are, in my opinion, not a fair admin. That is not a personal attack. I am allowed to say my opinion. Doc talk 11:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic banned for one month from all Donald Trump-related pages.

You have been sanctioned for persistent aggressive and personalising editing of Talk:Donald Trump

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You should not even have the ability to topic ban me considering your bias. This is a disgrace and a very flimsy attempt to curb opinions you just don't like. "Personalizing editing". What a joke. Pitiful. Doc talk 11:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen:, you have stepped in and acted as judge, jury and executioner. You've created a solution where there wasn't a problem. You've been extremely biased against me for many years. Why couldn't you let someone else handle this? Or let it go on for more than, oh a few hours? You know perfectly well that you are acting in a totally biased and punitive manner. Do you really think this is going to teach me a lesson? What it teaches me is that there is no due process here. I was absolutely railroaded on this issue. You did not even let another admin respond. A total disgrace. Doc talk 11:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there's an open AE request (no, I didn't close it), I suggest you keep discussion of this sanction, and of me in the context of it, to WP:AE. I have responded to you there. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC).

Here's what you don't get. It really is just straight-up censorship. It's quite the opposite of being "encyclopedic". Silencing the "disruptive" voices like mine? Meh. More like eliminating opposition. Whether it's Trump or any other topic, it's the same issue. It's very dishonest to marginalize those we don't agree with by calling their views "disruptive". Doc talk 12:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

AE

Per the consensus at AE, the one month ban Bishonen implemented is affirmed. In addition, there was consensus to issue a warning that any disruption under the scope of the American politics 2 arbitration case will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban. I thought I had left this notice immediately after closing the discussion, but I was having some connection issues and it apparently didn't go through; my apologies for the delay. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Like I ever expected it to be overturned! "Disruptive" is a very subjective description. If I was truly disruptive I would have been blocked, per the eager recommendations. Dang. Maybe borderline disruptive? Meh. My only real choice is to stop editing Trump stuff altogether, not out of fear of laughable sanctions, but with the knowledge that NPOV is totally out the window there. I've only ever been blocked in my tenure here very recently, and only over this subject, not because I've suddenly become "disruptive". Since the topic is under discretionary sanctions any admin can swoop in and issue decisions that will not be overturned. Not the most ideal system, but it is what it is. I've edited other things under sanction and never experienced anything close to the backlash like I have with this topic. So... you win! I seriously doubt I will revisit that topic after the month expired.

As far as the "American politics 2", or whatever, warning? Never had a problem except for with the anti-Trump set, so the assumption that I would "disrupt" the broader field is simply ABF backslapping cronyism. Don't expect me to "disrupt" American politics 2. Yeesh... Cheers... Doc talk 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't even read the remainder of the AE until just now. Predictably, SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) was the most "vocal" and determined critic. "Behavior patterns" - ugh. Get over it. "Herding" me? Interesting choice of terms. I pray that you never even try to make admin. I really do. Doc talk 04:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment, I have been watching the proceedings myself, however, and I think your characterization of SMcCandlish is inaccurate/unjust/unfair. He may have been your most vocal critic, but, he aimed to address the "behaviour pattern" he perceives without a punitive punishment. Keep in mind, he looked towards keeping you focused on WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and not, towards WP:TBANning you from Donald Trump. He did also compare his own behaviour to yours, rather than just point the finger at you and say "bad dog" he took the time to reflect and say "I used to do that". Now, whether or not that was sincere is a matter of WP:AGF, in other words if it was sincere, assume it was sincere, and if it was not, assume that it was anyway. I honestly am more inclined to agree with parts of what SMcCandlish said than any other person on that thread (though parts also seem quite ludicrous to me, a fan club at AN/I? perhaps from some editors, but, there's those who look at issues with objectivity as well), comparatively Volunteer Marek specifically chased for a punitive punishment and the rest just agreed to it, I noted also that at least one editor brought up their issue with the WP:AGF compliance ban being that it can be manipulated unduly. Perhaps that is the case, and yes, it could put undue pressure on you to watch your every word, but, at least it looks towards a resolution to a "problem" and not a punishment. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That's really swell of SMcCandlish to compare his behavior to mine (which he certainly did not). Because:

"I suggest prohibiting Doc9871 from:

• Namecalling or questioning the good faith of other editors
• Menacing other editors on the basis of their administrative enforcement history regarding matters unrelated to the topic
• Trying to hound other editors out of a topic
• Threatening any editor with harassment, battleground, or editwar tactics, or issuing 'you can't do anything about me'-type challenges."

So, you see, my behavior must be "herded", whereas he has learned far more about that. Anything else? Doc talk 05:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may respond to "which he certainly did not"; 1."I was once subject to a "not questioning good faith" sanction myself, and it markedly changed my approach to other editors away from my habitual Usenet-style "verbal combat" tactics", 2. " I also speak from experience here, having been twice subjected to short-term TBs, in ways that effectively supervoted in favor of the other party and gave them free reign..." and 3. "I think the cases [Yours and His] are parallel; there's a good chance that the underlying NPoV issues that Doc is trying, intemperately, to address are legitimate." It's not all about behaviour and comparison, I'll freely admit, part of it is just their own experience (with you and with others). I don't have your experience, as you would say "mileage may vary", just my own perspective. I could be wrong, I am not infallible after all (except when challenged), and I only have my own kilometrage (a far cry from a mile) to speak from. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have seen so many editors come and go. Analyses of my "behavior patterns", as well as judgements pronounced by admins that truly think they speak for all, I really put very little stock in. One can attempt to lump me into a disruptive pattern if one chooses, but I may just surprise you! The lesson I have learned from this is: don't edit discretionary sanctioned topics. If you do dare to edit them, expect that the determination of "disruption" is going to be based on the most CONLIMITED interpretations. Doc talk 05:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The remedies I suggested are things that Doc should not be doing anyway. A "restriction" to abide by the same rules and behavioral norms as everyone else is not exactly much of a restriction, and considerably less restrictive than a topic ban. I don't like topic bans being issued for behavior-pattern problems when they are not connected to the topic. It's a confusion of correlation and causation, like banning someone from 4th Street, or from driving a Toyota, after they were caught speeding in a Toyota on 4th street, instead of issuing them a speeding ticket. Such a Tban has a strong tendency to cause the recipient of it to react with outrage, claim bias on the part of the issuer, perceive a cabal, and decry Wikipedia administration as corrupt/broken, instead of focusing on why they were "pulled over" at AE, ANI, or whatever the dramaboard in question was. I've seen it happen again and again, and if anything was "predictable" it was that this would happen again in this case, and sure enough it did. What I meant by Doc having a fan club at ANI was that at ANI no action had been taken, solely on an "aw, but he's been here a long time and is usually such a constructive content editor" excuse; that's fandom getting in the way of critical thinking. Or you could call it an "ends justify the means" attitude, or "cronyism and a good-ol'-boys' club"; there are a million forms of this fallacy, but it comes down to the same error.

Had AE taken the tactic I suggested, then, yes, Doc would have to watch what he says pretty carefully, exactly as I did. For a while. After enough exercise in thinking and moderating before you click "Save page", it becomes second nature to stay within civility limits. You use more cogent techniques to get someone to show their hand and how weak it is on a sourcing and/or policy level. I learned the hard way that being right about something will not at all save you from unfair and sometimes content-harmful topic bans if you're a WP:JERK about being right, and that AN/AE/ARBCOM will not do jack-squat for you if they think you've been being a jerk, no matter how obvious is it that some admin is out for your blood. (And, Doc, you know damned well you act like a jerk – you display an enormous amount of pride in it, challenging all comers to do anything about it, so you're not in a position to play the shocked and hurt, innocent little victim when they finally do so. No one likes a bully, and no one is fooled when the bully pouts and claims he's being picked on when he gets busted.) The present admin crowd care far, far more about bopping people on the head punitively than they do about prevention by adjusting behavior; it's just easier to sit someone on the bench or kick them off the team than to train them to be a better player. The only tool they seem to ever want to use is preventing a particular editor from editing in a particular topic, or at all, with topic bans and blocks, instead of making it difficult to keep engaging in the same behavior across multiple topics. The current admin strategy for dealing with inter-editor conflicts is to apply a "fit in or fuck off" rule, in effect, without regard to the meat of the content dispute at hand and no matter how otherwise competent the editor is (generally, or in relation to the other party/parties in the dispute). I try to dissuade that trend when I can, but get little traction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to act the way you think they should act here. Nor will they get punished just because you think they should. That's why you probably get little traction when recommending ways to implement things that aren't going to work. You can tell the community til you're blue in the face what should be done about "jerks" like me, but you can't make them listen. It's not my fault you can't prove that I need major behavioral restrictions. You're simply wrong about that. I don't break any major rules or I would have a mile-long block log by now. Doc talk 08:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this pure innocence of yours if why you are not under a Tban, under a hair-trigger warning about the entire scope of American politics, and have multiple admins chomping at the bit to give you a broader topic ban, plus an admonition to avoid conflict with the editor who opened that AE request. That's basically a whole series of pit traps in your path, all dug because of your unnecessarily hostile style of response (I'm avoiding calling it a behavior pattern since that irritates you). This is not an "argument" I need to "win". You can either believe me and try a different tactic, or not; it's entirely your choice. When they guy with the burn scars tells you what happens when you open the furnace door, it might be worth listening, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Check out this response.[20] This is this type of measured, professional response that I can respect. Your smarmy analyses are very hard to stomach. I can't take behavior "advice" from an editor like you. You're not one who practices what they preach. You have a very condescending tone that is disengenuous to me. Read and re-read the response above a few times, especially in light of my comments. Your analogies of furnace doors etc. are less clever than you think. Doc talk 05:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did say "You can either believe me and try a different tactic, or not; it's entirely your choice", so I'm hardly in a position to complain if you opt for "or not". Being clever is rarely a goal of mine; I use analogies to illustrate, to make a point clearer, not to entertain. I will note, however, that condescension in judicious, not excessive, amounts isn't an NPA/CIVIL problem, unlike raw hostility. If someone's argument is weak enough and keeps being repeated, condescension can become inevitable. There is no "WP:NOCONDESCENSION", and patiently explaining why a stance is wrong is apt to be taken as condescension whether intended that way or not, anyhow. It is usually an "assume the worst" inference by the reader not an intended implication by the writer. If someone on WP feels they are being condescended to, it is usually because they're stuck in WP:IDHT mode, and people are necessarily approaching them more and more like they're someone with reading comprehension problems, explaining in simpler and simpler terms, until they finally get it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a fair amount of subjective opinion going on here, it's rather difficult to get traction to make a change when everyone has a differing opinion of what does and does not constitute violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. There are those who would have you believe that swearing is a violation of the above, those who think that context dictates the situation, those who WP:DGAF either way, those who hate the rules because they just get in the way (there's an essay on this topic I think, ignore all rules?) and many more interpretations on top of that. Consider for example; Volunteer Marek believed him being told to shut up was a WP:NPA violation, Doc thought it was ridiculous to try to claim it as such, and myself who thinks that at most it can violate the spirit of WP:CIVIL (and that only applies when it affects the ability to resolve a dispute, which, admittedly it did in this case). Another example; I was called a c**t by an editor in the right context and it by no means violated WP:NPA (it was used to explain a difference in Slavic languages, where in one it means c**t and in another it means "to coddle"), yet, to someone else, this may have been an egregious offence because the context would have flown right over their head (or they could be a feminist and this word is an insult against all women even though it had nothing to do with them, both valid options). I again repeat, I agree that a TBAN was stupid, (what a waste of power to accomplish diddly squat except slight an editor) but, I also note cautiously that the alternative, may not have changed a thing either. Doc feels (I speculate) he was in the right, telling him he's wrong won't change a thing, showing him, that's a matter of whether he's willing to look and if he does, will he see what you do? Now, however, we enter the realm of speculation (and possibly hindsight). I haven't personally had any unfortunate run-ins with Doc, he's a bit stiff in wording and can come across rather blunt but, in-so-far as my experience dictates, he's not vindictive or spiteful, just direct. I haven't much of a filter either, I re-read each of my messages at least two or three times and have occasionally managed to avoid an especially nasty breach of WP:NPA because my annoyance had been heightened. No clue how much attention Doc pays to his messages, or if he writes out his thoughts exactly as they are and pastes them. I guess, on the one hand, even if it's rude, at least it's an honest reflection of what he's thinking. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The source of Doc's trouble is that he's certain that he has an unlimited right on WP to always express his opinion, even when it constitutes an insult or accusation (see further up this page), and this incorrect. The way around this problem, as I've learned the hard way, is to recast "you are a ...", "you are doing ...", "you had better ...", "you are so full of ..." flaming into statements of subjective personal opinion ("that comes off as ..", "how is that not a case of ...?", "that seems like ... to me", "wouldn't it be better to ...?"), or neutral statements of fact ("policy X says not to ...", "there's already a consensus against ...", "see WP:XYX", "not according to sources A, B, and C", "that's fallacious because ...", etc.). A good rule of thumb is "would you say this to someone in a face-to-face discussion?".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I take the majority of your points and they are indeed a way to avoid coming into unnecessary conflict and stop yourself attacking the editor, rather than content. That said, on your last point with the rule of thumb, in my case for example that would be a terrible rule of thumb for me to follow. Again, I lack the filter to avoid saying certain things. I can take a very blunt approach in saying exactly what I think, I police it carefully on Wikipedia and occasionally self-revert even after having read my comment multiple times on the grounds that it may violate one of NPA, CIVIL or AGF. I think it may also be prudent to note, that after a certain amount of time and a certain amount of instances of meeting different editors with a similar propensity to push certain things (their POV, their interpretation of policy, or whatever else) that one may fall into the trap of having an automated response to those things. It's rather easy to violate NPA by making an unfounded accusation after you've more carefully made that accusation multiple times and been correct. Perhaps Doc thinks his rope has grown to become infinitely long, or, perhaps he has an automated response to certain stimuli after that response has been confirmed many times before by many different editors. You'd be grumpy too if you had ten different editors approach you with the same attitude, it wears you down, so much so that you stop caring about the editor. Perhaps the lines have been blurred, the content now reflects the editor, poor content and therefore poor editor. Snap judgement, snap response, possibly accurate judgement, but, poor response. Or perhaps I'm delving far off-topic and reading into many books that have not been written, either or. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"an automated response to certain stimuli". I feel like the subject of an experiment! Such clinical terminology! I love it. Doc talk 10:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed on all of that. I go through exactly the same experience, especially with tagteams of will-not-budge editors who recycle the same arguments endlessly no matter how many times they are refuted. It does get difficult, over time, to keep responding to them in a measured tone, especially if they really do seem to be exhibiting some kind of mental problem, and I too have to sometimes self-revert or otherwise redact when dealing with them. So, yes, it does require some actual effort.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you've been told your whole life that you are a "very smart" person, probably even a genius. I concur that you are a highly intelligent individual. I appreciate your candor and self-reflection. It's not always easy, as I well know. Doc talk 05:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I get called less flattering things, too, though, like something ending in "-hole". I've had to swear off arguing politics on Facebook because it was damaging actual friendships. A knack for logic can interfere with empathy, and a (former) career in high-stakes, issues-based activism can make me want to win more than compromise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I have looked over the year-old "American politics 2" page. No mention of Donald Trump, no mention of Hillary Clinton. Instead, "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." It is astonishing that you people feel that such a sanction would be appropriate in this case. Anything post-1932?! Shame on you for even suggesting it. Doc talk 08:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe there's also a discretionary sanction for any article that has anything to do with Islam, quite a bit broader than post-1932 politics in the U.S. I'm tempted to assume that they picked '32 due Roosevelt from '33-'45. Also, if you're under TBAN shouldn't someone update WP:EDR, so that there's no confusion? Mr rnddude (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Just another data point on Doc's behavior toward other editors. I was having a civil discussion concerning the reversion and addition another editor had made to some of my contributions to the Trump article. After making a non-substantive contribution to this discussion, Doc made the following addition to my talk page. "Do you want to disclose any other accounts you've used here. Just IP's, right? Doc talk 07:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)". I had had no prior contact with Doc, he had no reason to suspect sock puppetry and his comments appeared solely to harass and to silence "anti-Trump" voices. Gaas99 (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Data point". Mmmhmm. Buh-bye. Doc talk 10:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The loss of Joy

Am alive. Miss you dearly. Dead hero son, Broken heart etc. Chemo brain.= diabetes/. No Susan. SAD. Have tried to change my email several times to no avail. Help? It is [see page history] "My noble partner...Look into the seeds of time..." Love — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I miss you too, Joy! And I also miss the old days when Susan and you and I were learning how to deal with this crazy place. Your son is a hero. Anyone watching this page: Shaun Diamond was one of the best of the best.[21] I am so sorry he's not here. I will send you an email. Love you, Joy! Doc talk 08:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Chit-chat

@Volunteer Marek: - You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of one-way IBAN on me, that came along with the Trump topic ban, that prevents me from commenting on your behavior anywhere on WP. I assure you: this isn't the case. I don't think you can distinguish between actual personal attacks and statements you disagree with. The more I look at how you wrongly interpret policy, the more concerned I get that you're even allowed to edit sensitive areas like American politics 2. You've banned scores of editors from your talk page. Major red flag! I think you're here to push your POV first and foremost. I think you could give a rat's ass about NPOV, or any POV you disagree with. And I absolutely think you should be banned from American politics 2 because of it. I am allowed to say this at AE, and it's not a "personal attack" to repeat this opinion here. Doc talk 13:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't Stop Believin'

I'm guessing / just realizing that you're a type of moderator here. If you in fact have control over what info is on the page in question, it would be a HUGE wrong to leave in the very misleading entry you've re-submitted. Windsor, Ontario is south _OF_ Detroit, Michigan. Detroit, Michigan is the city that NUMEROUS bands would make reference to in their songs. Especially rock bands and especially during the 70s into the 80s. Not Windsor and not any other suburbs of Detroit that also lie south of Detroit (or "downriver"). The song simply makes reference to the south SIDE of Detroit. The quote by Perry makes it clear that the word south was only added because... well, try singing it without south and just a long INNNN in it's place. As the quote makes clear, the song would not have sounded right without south (or something) before the word Detroit. Not that it's is needed for most to understand that the song is referencing Detroit and only Detroit but there is also a quote by Perry in which he stated that Detroit was very much in their (the writers) minds as they wrote the song. Windsor is not a part of Detroit. The song makes reference to the south side of Detroit. If the entry about Windsor is left on the page, so be it, but it is completely misleading and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FateSteve (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It's very simple. You are attempting to add your own, unreferenced original research to the article and present it as encyclopedic material. Removing cited material in its place, no less. It's not going to happen. If you keep it up, you will be blocked for it. Thanks. Doc talk 06:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

August 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday Auugust 17, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Featuring special guest presentations on WikiVerse and Bringing Wikipedia to the Last Mile. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent (UN Women!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday August 17 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Prep for our chapter elections next month in September (and add your candidacy!): Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Elections

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 2016

Hi. This is not about your Trump topic ban as such; more about the warning that followed on the WP:AE discussion.[22] My one-month ban from Donald Trump was not only upheld, if you remember, but you were also formally warned that "any disruption under the scope of the American politics 2 arbitration case will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban."[23]. Do you recollect wherein the disruption consisted, that you were banned for? Attacks and personalized comments against Volunteer Marek at Talk:Donald Trump. All the admins who posted agreed with me that these personal attacks were unacceptable. I was consequently surprised to see this edit on Talk:Clinton Foundation: practically a carbon copy of your disruption at Talk:Donald Trump, namely a personalised attack on VM, on a talkpage certainly under the scope of the American politics 2 arbitration case. The AE didn't result in any formal IBAN between the two of you, but the discussion was all about your attacks on VM, and I actually stated there that "I hope he [=you] realises that he's on notice wrt to [questioning the good faith of others] now, especially as far as attacking Volunteer Marek is concerned". I guess you didn't realise it, though I'm sure you read that AE discussion. I have some tolerance for personal comments on user talkpages, but none on article talk. I've been in two minds whether to block you, or widen (and lengthen) your topic ban, or go back to AE for a new discussion. But, in consideration of it being one post — hopefully to be regarded as a temporary loss of cool — I'm merely warning you at this time. Any more of the same and you will be sanctioned. Just stop it, please. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC).

Now one would think it that it would be quite inappropriate for you alone to "widen (and lengthen)" my topic ban without any sort of... "consultation". However, in the current climate you'd probably get a barnstar for it. Warning is duly noted. ;P Doc talk 05:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Whew! Lots of "disruption" was avoided thanks to your topic ban. Who knows what mayhem I could have unleashed? It was, blessedly, prevented. Thank you! You, and your various other accounts, are to be congratulated. "Disruption". That's a very interesting term. Pretty subjective, isn't it? Your hands are unclean. Doc talk 10:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I don't know if you noticed that the strange edit by Robotic131225189311 to the Donald Trump lead that you reverted, "Trump was inducted into the celebrity wing of the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013 at Madison Square Garden for his contributions to the promotion", was simply a copypaste from the "Professional wrestling" section of the article, minus context and source. And it wasn't just a mistake, because he re-reverted you. WP:CIR does come to mind. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

I didn't catch where it was gleaned from, but thanks! Not very competent at all, that one. Cheers :) Doc talk 09:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for standing up against the bias of Wikipedia

I just want to say thanks for not accepting the BS that so many editors, even well established users spew on this site. They're the reason Wikipedia is dying and why the project is less respeted as a reliable source of information. People scream about BLP and reliable sources when something doesn't fit their views/agenda but when it comes to people they don't like, such as Donald Trump, it's apparently gloves off and anything goes. Beatitudinem (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Beatitudinem (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this tends to be true (but not about WP "dying" - no comment on that. It's been "dying" since the day I started here, and before...). In general, people are usually very unwilling to waver from their own beliefs. Religion, politics, etc. With a system like Wikipedia there's an opportunity to counter bias through policy and guidelines. Objectivity is the best policy. Cheers ;) Doc talk 07:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Doc9871. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You know what,

I'm gonna go sleep. One more chance to remove all the insults and personal attacks from [24]. I'll let the insults and personal attacks in the edit summaries slide. If not then on the basis of Bishonen (talk · contribs)'s topic ban and The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs)'s comments in extending the ban ("there was consensus to issue a warning that any disruption under the scope of the American politics 2 arbitration case will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban.") we'll go to AE when I wake up. I'm really trying to be nice about this. Feel free to remove this message.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no "insults". No "personal attacks". I've always maintained you're totally biased against Trump and have no business editing that topic as such. Still do. What you think is a "personal attack" is really just challenging your authority to objectively edit topics in an encyclopedic manner. I will retract nothing, as I have made no "personal attacks" against policy. Fuck off now. Doc talk 09:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, alright, here you go [25].Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully this leads to your ouster from the Trump article. Do you even dare to deny that you are biased against the subject? Doc talk 09:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Why can't you be more like EEng?! He clearly hates Trump!! What separates you from someone like him? You take yourself too seriously. Doc talk 10:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't hate Donald Trump, though I do feel sorry for him (along with the rest of us). Things are getting desperate when EEng is being help up as a behavioral exemplar. EEng 13:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand why the "celebs moving away" is actually being treated as a "non-story". Absurd! I could be turned into a negative! Trump says, "Go"!!![26] Doc talk 13:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I came here, because you pinged me, to correct your misstatement that I "hate Donald Trump". But I'd rather not engage in non-humorous political chit-chat. EEng 15:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Duly noted. In other news...[27] Doc talk 06:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually looking into building a little museum of my own. "The Museum of Butthurt Malcontents". A bunch of geeks say to challenge the election results due to "computer error". Glavin! Abolish the electoral college! Ooooff!! Please stop with the kicking and the biting and the hurting! Doc talk 06:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's at 2 mil+ in the popular vote now![28] Jill Stein has raised much more than the $2 mil needed for recounts! [29] Waaaaahhh!!! "Get Over It!", they said in 2008. And in 2012. Now: time for revolution!!!! Doc talk 10:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you're bringing all this to my attention. The Museums were meant to be a source of amusement for editors, as a break from editing. What you're saying isn't in that spirit at all. I'm unwatching here. EEng 03:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)