Misplaced Pages

We really need to get that changed, as the reality is actually that 'Civility is policy badly enforced depending on who is doing the blocking and who is being blocked.'Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, I know that I shouldn't have told him/her to fuck off. Discussing things first, instead of twice reverting me before even starting to discuss things with me, can have that effect on people who are already tired of the antics of another user though. Neither Bgwhite nor me handled this in the best possible way (and my way was probably worse). Getting someone like Demiurge, who seems to see this as his chance to get revenge for being blocked a few months ago, joining the circus doesn't help to calm things of course. But where have I been incivil throughout this discussion? I think I have been rather restrained here, discussing things frankly but without incivility. Please indicate which replies (or parts) here you consider incivil, so that I can reflect on them. Fram (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right, Only in death. If a non-admin used that fuck off edit summary while edit-warring on someone else's talk page to re-insert a personal attack, they'd find themselves blocked in an instant. But no-one has the guts to deal with Fram because they know very well what would ultimately follow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, what would actually "ultimately follow"? Apart from that: blocking people depends on what they do, and on the circumstances. Perhaps I haven't been blocked because people tend to look at the circumstances as well, and not because they are afraid of me. I doubt that many admins here really are that frightened of what I might "ultimately" do. Fram (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The "circumstances" are very clear. A non-administrator would've been blocked for that, no two ways about it. You should be held to the same standards you take such glee in seeing imposed on others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

For someone complaining about incivility, you certainly aren't giving the best example. "Glee"? Where do you get that idea? As for whether non-admins would be blocked, I'll give you an example I was involved with recently: at Gargamel, and editor stated ",this statment sounds rather ANTISEMITIST!!!" in his edit summary, about an edit I made. Block? No, patient explanation on the article talk page, and a warning on his talk page. Most admins aren't the trigger-happy fellows you seem to believe they are. Looking at recent changes, I note e.g. . I doubt he will be blocked for this. Fram (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)You can look at e.g. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Beyond My Ken and Yworo, which deals with unacceptable edit summaries. Non-admins, but no blocks were given. Does that mean that their behaviour was accepted? No, but blocking isn't usually done easily. We generally understand that people can overreact, and try to find a resolution that doesn't involve blocking. If blocks need to be given anyway, there normally isn't any "glee" involved. I feel happy when I can create decent content; I feel happy when there are no disputes; I at most feel relief when some problematic editor is being dealt with as necessary. Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion is not constructive. Fram made a strong comment on Kumioko's talk page. It's not clear to me that it was even uncivil, but I suppose, given the all-over-the-place interpretations of civility at Misplaced Pages, some might think it was. Bgwhite reverted. In my view, he shouldn't have, but it's not the worst revert I've ever seen. Fram restored his comment. At that point, any further battling on the talk page should have ceased. Bgwhite should not have reverted yet again. He should have taken it to Fram's talk page, which he did, but after his second reversion, and if he still felt Fram was wrong, he could have then come here. Then Fram reverted again with the later-deleted edit summary (that everyone knows about anyway from this discussion). He, too, should not have insisted and left it alone, sought input from others, whatever, but the edit-warring was inappropriate. Finally, as long as I'm expressing my opinion on two admins, I might as well add another. Rschen should not have rev/del'ed the edit summary. Most important: This discussion should be closed, and, as an uninvolved admin, I'm tempted to do so now as I think it will only get worse, but I need to go to work, so I'm not.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I basically agree with all your points, but would prefer to hear some further uninvolved comments about the underlying issue (Kumioko and me, that is). But don't worry, I'll not edit war if the next person decides to close this instead :-) Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments here are rapidly descending down the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT route. As I stated in this thread some hours ago, the particular part of your personal attack on the other editor that I found especially problematic, was "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room". Making comments like that while talking about him getting blocked (something which you also do elsewhere as discussed earlier), yes, makes it sound that you're taking some rather unprofessional pleasure in this sort of thing. The question is how that should be addressed.

(Digging out an incident where an editor made a comment about a statement - not about a person - and didn't get blocked, and comparing it with your atrocious behaviour in this incident, is completely irrelevant.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• My advice to Fram is to walk away from this conflict before he gets himself in any more trouble. Sometimes it's best to say "mistakes were made" and find something less controversial to occupy oneself with. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Fram asked for comment before the archive and I was drafting this before the archive: Fram has escalated a personal dispute and has dragged others into it. The aim should be to avoid the personal, even in the face of bad acts from the the other side (as that leads to deescalation and hangs the bad acts where they belong -- don't get in the way of that).Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sidonia von Bork die Klosterhexe by Wilhelm Meinhold

I have transcribed from the Frakturschrift and re-published on the web the original 1847-8 German text of Wilhelm Meinhold's novel Sidonia von Bork die Klosterhexe. Incredibly, it appears to be on some kind of blacklist. It is a great novel and deserves to be more widely read in the original. Can you explain why wikipedia will not display the link to the novel?Shirley49 (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

For future reference — this kind of question is better asked at the Help Desk. In this case, your problem is a simple coding error: when you added the link to Sidonia von Borcke, you coded it as , which displays as . That's what you wanted, isn't it? But over at Wilhelm Meinhold, you coded it as {{http://sites.google.com/site/sidoniavonborkdieklosterhexe}}, which becomes the useless Template:Http://sites.google.com/site/sidoniavonborkdieklosterhexe. If you want to make an external links, type a left bracket, add the URL, put in a space, type a descriptive title for the link, and finish it off with a right brancket. For example, produces Sidonia von Borkdieklosterhexe. However, putting something between two pairs of braces, the {{ and }} characters, makes our software think that you're inserting a template. Be very careful with your coding; nobody will complain at you for using the wrong coding (it's not prohibited), but the software will do surprising things unless you type everything correctly. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It now seems to work. I'm new to this so I expect to make plenty more mistakes until I have learnt all the procedures. Shirley49 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Some deletion work to do

I think the Hungary nominations here can all be deleted under G5. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorted. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, almost. I have to go offline for a short while, if someone else could close the remaining discussions, I'd be grateful. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Um I may be missing something here but those cats were not created by a blocked/banned user in violation of their block/ban, and therefore are not eligible for G5... GiantSnowman 11:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Crapola. You're right, GS; the categories weren't created by a sock, and I'm due a slap on the wrist for failing to check first. I will willingly restore the pages if asked, but given that the parent project Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary was deleted (correctly) under G5, there seems to be no purpose served by doing so; which is why I'm not going to reverse the action on my own initiative. Trout me if you wish, I deserve it. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Friday is fish day, after all ;) - they're not eligible for G5 but one could argue G8 seeing as the parent project has been deleted...? GiantSnowman 12:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the error! I assumed from what the nom had written that they were eligible for G5. Whatever the case, it wasn't worth wasting our time with them at CFD. Thanks for your help. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit notices?

Category:Political scandals in Canada and its sub-cats. They have BLP and various other articles that are not scandals, but do contain scandal or controversy sections. Could properly worded edit notices help keep the wrong articles out, or just re-name to articles containing material that some consider a scandal?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with editnotices for this purpose is that people almost never edit the categories themselves; you'd never see the editnotice on a category when you're editing an article to put it into that category. You'd have to remove the category from articles and perhaps place a <!-- comment --> next to the categories reminding people not to put the scandals categories back because these articles aren't about scandals. If you see people continually adding non-scandals to the scandals categories, it might be good to have editnotices created for the articles themselves. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible IP sockpuppetry on User:Bongwarrior's user page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could you look into User:Bongwarrior's user page, please? I've been noticing a number of IP addresses doing the same thing - removing content from his talk page, and the content replaced is the same thing. I suspect IP socking going on, so I'd like an admin to look into this. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

indian castes and CSD:A1

Hello, been away for a while, need 2nd opinion. I declined to speedy Komati Caste. Looks like no context does not apply, but sometimes it's better to ask, etc. Dlohcierekim 03:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's nowhere near being an A1, good decline. Courcelles 06:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Dlohcierekim 14:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Not A1 but it needs some important fixing. I'd suggest somehow moving the content to replace that at Komati (caste), which is the more usual titling and currently contains information that I pretty much guarantee you cannot be supported per WP:V. I can sort out sources for the content of the declined CSD when I'm back editing properly - I'm User:Sitush, currently using someone else's PC. Mail me using the link on the Sitush userpage if you need confirmation. Thanks.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've just restored the redirect that was at Komati (caste) until recently. If someone wants to move Komati Caste to that title over the redirect then that's fine by me, and I can dig into it further when I am back on my feet. My suspicion is that the redirect is correct and there is some POV-pushing/forking going on but I'm not in a great place at the moment to follow through on that.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone also needs to remove the sole section at Talk:Komati Caste because it seems to be extensive copyright violation close paraphrasing. I can't do it because a filter kicks in when I edit as an IP.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Afzal Guru

Can a admin please consider the WP:RPP for this article or keep an eye on it, the guy has just been hung in india and emotions look like they may run high. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 07:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The Puppy has done the needy.--Jezebel'sPonyo 18:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 nor'easter

There is a heated debate going on over at Talk:February 2013 nor'easter reguarding the article's name, is there an uninvolved admin that can intervene? Or possibly close the move request until a Common Name is reached? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be going anywhere, just in circles. There is no consensus in the move request and I don't see one forming anytime soon (if you want votes, it is currently 11-10 in favor of those who are opposed to the move). United States Man (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OFFER accepted, your input requested

Dewan357 (talk · contribs) sought my talk page to request an unblock; see User_talk:Drmies#Dewan357. They have an extensive SPI archive, having been blocked and socked on for instance Mughal Empire (still under protection because of Dewan's IP editing, last seen possibly August 2011). They claim not to have edited since August 2012 and I am inclined to believe them, but then I also dug a bunker in my yard and wore a tin-foil hat through December 1999. I don't know if accepting their request can come with conditions, like not editing those areas that got them in hot water in the first place; I have not identified those areas, but a discussion here can clarify and specify. It's up to you all. Also, I'm not sure if it's kosher for them to respond here at AN if needs be from their IP address; I don't have much of a problem with allowing a blocked editor to comment on their own talk page, my talk page, and this discussion, but that's up to you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No comment on block or unblock, but I thoroughly agree with your final sentence. Block evasion is a problem because it's generally disruptive, and commenting here in a reasonable manner isn't. Of course, doing anything else (or commenting here disruptively) is a comlpetely different issue. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that the user is blocked. We have a convention to cover instances in which blocked users wish to comment on this forum. Tiderolls 08:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A convention that as many people seem to dislike as like. King of Hearts even sometimes does that trick where he sets up an edit filter that blocks them from editing anywhere but their talk page and AN. — PinkAmpers& 10:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The normal process is for the blocked user to post what they want copy/pasted to AN/ANI on their talkpage, plus a {{helpme}} request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the normal process {{unblock}}? NE Ent 12:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to lift restriction

I am here again, three months after my restriction was enacted. During the last three months I have dedicated myself to learn from the mistakes I did, and to try to improve my understanding of the deletion policy and the non-admin closure guidelines. I recognize that I made several errors in judgement in my closures, and that I did some I shouldn't have. My intentions were always to help, as much as I could, but I understand that while doing so, I violated the spirit of the NACs, and caused problems I could have avoided. Also, I have tried to do my best to become a better Wikipedian and to not make more mistakes like those I did, and to help other users not to make those same mistakes.

Therefore, I am here, asking the community if enough time has elapsed since my restriction was enacted and if it could be lifted now, three months later. I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures (although I may seek guidance from an admin, likely Elen of the Roads or Mark Arsten, if I decide to perform a close); I believe that I have learned from that restriction: I have changed, and I hope I did it for the best. Finally, I'd like the community to consider this request as an apology for what I did, and as a commitment that I will do my best to improve further from that experience I had back in November. Thank you. — ΛΧΣ 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lift of restriction, as Hahc has really improved his skills and knowledge in the past three months. The restriction is no longer necessary.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• In the linked discussion where the restriction was enacted, you described the complaint as "Such absurd claims these are" and "As for everything else, I think it's a bit ridiculous and extreme" - have you changed your mind about this, or do you still believe the complaint had those issues? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Unsure why my opinion on the original compliant has any relevance to its request for being lifted.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Because it contradicts with your statement here which implies that the restriction was at one point necessary Till 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• The restriction was made by consensus; not everybody involved in a discussion must agree, but if there are more "support" than "oppose", it's so. That doesn't make a difference. Per the consensus (not my own opinion on the matter), the restriction no longer applies. Simple.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• IN B4 "YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• All I'm saying is that here you said the restriction is "no longer" necessary (which means it was necessary at 1 point), but in the original thread you said that it is not necessary at all. U can't go by 2 statements which contradict each other like that. Perhaps you meant "the restriction is not ncessary"? Btw—the restriction was not entirely made by consensus—Hahc agreed to it Till 04:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Again, I was basing my comment on consensus, not on my own personal opinion. I never said "I feel that it is no longer necessary." Per the consensus of his restriction, it was deemed that it was required because he hadn't known enough about policy. Clearly he has improved on such.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's not much of a "consensus" if u agree to it, duh Till 05:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@Till: this thread is for discussing the lifting of a restriction on Hahc ... this thread is not about Status, and certainly not about Status' state of mind a few months ago. --Noleander (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who brought that issue up. Till 05:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lift of restriction - I have seen Hahc21 around quite a lot and I would be quite happy to put my opinion towards lifting the edit restriction. This vote made by his alternative account is a good argument and matched closing consensus as did this one. This was not as extensive as I would expect but it does weigh a bit and matched closing consensus. At this article for deletion he picks up and give a good depth. I can not see at the moment a valid reason to keep this user under the restriction, Granted they now understand the policy that is responsible for AfDs. John F. Lewis (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support lift of restriction - Hahc21's been doing some fine work recently, and his apology seems sincere. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question for Hahc21: I think it would probably be a good idea to relax the restriction, but before I commit one way or the other I would like to see how your understanding has improved. If you are willing, could you pick any three AfD discussions that are currently open and that are eligible for non-admin closure, and tell us how you would close them? (Please understand that there is no need for you to answer this question if you don't want to; if you would rather not, that is absolutely fine.) — Mr. Stradivarius 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I am not willing to do more NACs, I'd be glad to answer your question. Give me a day to find and evaluate three discussions and come here with a response. Thank you :) — ΛΧΣ 05:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. One of the underlying problems in the original thread was that Hahc could not admit to his wrongdoings of making poor and problematic NAC closures. Now that he has acknowledged these errors it appears that the restriction does not seem necessary as it was before. However, I just hope that we won't see that kind of judgement in the form of closing discussions in the future Till 05:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - I am inclined to think the user has learned from his mistakes, however I would be slightly worried about letting him resume doing NACs freely when the community has previously agreed he shouldn't; however, if Stradivarius' question above is answered successfully I see no other obstacle to the lifting of the restrictions. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Good day Salvidriml, in case you missed it but in the openening paragraph Hahc21 stated 'I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures', Which should address your concern. Should that be the actual concern unless you are pointing some else out. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to request a speedy close for this discussion. 5 editors support the move while only 1 is opposed. Pass a Method talk 04:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't "require permission" to create things in the "Misplaced Pages" space -- It doesn't need a speedy close, it needs an admin move back over the redirect -- there was no justification for St. Anselm to unilaterally move it out of Misplaced Pages space -- if they felt it was inappropriate they can Mfd it. NE Ent 04:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, if a move is reverted it should be discussed. I based my objection on Category:Misplaced Pages essays, which says "User essays may be moved categorically into the Misplaced Pages namespace and this category if they are frequently referenced, as evidenced by becoming an evolving expression of multiple editors." Clearly, that is not yet the case with this essay. In any case, I don't want the essay deleted - I just think it should stay in user space. Actually, it survived an MfD discussion a while ago, and many of the keep !votes were predicated on it being in user space. But this is the discussion we should have been having on the essay's talk page. I presented these arguments, and no-one has responded to them. StAnselm (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about the essay one way or the other, but this is setting a dangerous precedent -- if you don't like another user's Misplaced Pages: space just unilaterally move it into their userspace without going through the normal move process. Move requests are used for intranamespace moves, not internamespace moves. NE Ent 12:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for interaction ban-lift

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About two months ago, I accepted a ban on interacting with User:Tristan noir. Tristan noir volunteered the same. I volunteered for this, because the user had been harassing/undermining me on numerous articles, and seemed to have no other purpose on Misplaced Pages (almost every edit the user made was to this end). I figured that if I just got him/her banned from following me around various articles, he/she would probably stop editing Misplaced Pages entirely, and then I could go about my normal practice of improving Misplaced Pages articles on (classical) Japanese literature. My assumption appeared to be correct, as once the ban was in place the user refrained from making any edits at all.

This worked until about two weeks ago, when I happened to edit an article that I wasn't aware the user had also edited two months before. The user almost immediately posted a message to the admin who had put the ban in place, and complained about my edit. My edit had nothing whatsoever to do with his/her previous edit, and I made no indication that I was attempting to undermine his/her edit. The user, though, appears to have been watching my edits (or at least that page, although that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban) and waiting to get me blocked if I ever edited that page.

The admin sent me a warning and told me that, even though the original wording of the ban had been to refrain from editing articles that the other was "working on", this now applied even to edits made two months after the other party had made a minor edit to the article. I had been very clear when I initially took the ban (I stress voluntarily) that I did not expect to be treated like I had been banned for disruptive behaviour; the admin's applying harsher restrictions on me over a month later, when I had not in fact breached the original ban, therefore seems inappropriate. I understand that the admin may have misunderstood the situation of the article in question, and it is not his/her fault in the matter.

Apparently emboldened by the belief that I would be automatically banned from ever editing an article that he/she had touched, the user then became active on Misplaced Pages again, and set to work making mostly minor edits to numerous (13 and counting) articles on classical Japanese literature, which is my preferred field. The user had previously only ever edited such articles in order to insert references to otherwise non-notable modern American poets, and as far as I can remember those articles could be counted on one hand, but he/she suddenly became highly prolific when told that I was not allowed edit any article that he/she had ever touched. When I made some edits to a couple of those articles, the user immediately told on me again, and I was blocked for 24 hours. The admin also further emphasized the new strict restraints on my ban. While it might look like I followed the user to the latter set of articles (though not the first one, so the initial warning was essentially invalid), the fact is that my edits were all completely benign and did not mark an "interaction" with the user in question. They had no impact whatsoever on what he/she wrote, and in fact, one of those edits was primarily made to wikilink a relevant article I had just created, and I even took care to maintain his/her prose despite it not matching the article I had started.

I requested an unblock, given these circumstances, but my request was rejected by a second admin based on my having been in breach of a technicality in the interaction ban. The first admin did, however, recommend that I come here to request a lift of the ban.

So here I am.

I am not in any way interested in going back to "interacting" with Tristan noir. However, I need this interaction ban to be lifted (or at least lightened) so that I don't have to check every time I edit an article in my preferred field to see if he/she has edited it first, and don't have to fear getting blocked because of minor technicalities. My interaction ban was initially imposed because I asked for it, and I have since come to realize that it is having the opposite of the positive impact I expected. It is preventing me from fixing these and similar articles, and in fact allows Tristan noir much more freedom than it does me (I have no interest in going around "claiming" articles in his/her special field), despite the ban initially being proposed in order to restrain his/her activities. Most of Tristan noir's recent edits have been benign or somewhat positive. If he/she keeps up this kind of edit, I would be happy to edit the same articles as him/her in a peaceable manner; but under the current ban, I am immediately blocked every time I edit an article that Tristan noir has ever touched.

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: as far as I am aware, interaction bans normally do not prohibit the accidental and non-controversial editing of the same articles. Why was this one interpreted/enforced in this uncommonly strict way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well, but apparently it was not Tristan noir's, so when he complained about my edit to Mokichi Saitō, Drmies told me off and reverted my edit, even though that edit had been both accidental and non-controversial. In reality I think it was more of a breach for him to be closely following my edits and to immediately complain when I did something he didn't like. But the technicalities of this ban means he is allowed do that and not get blocked, while I am not allowed to edit any of the above pages unless I want to get blocked. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking through contributions, I note that with the exception of Uta monogatari and two related articles, Tristan hasn't been editing pages that look like Japanese poetry until very recently. Were that not the case, your argument would collapse, but it strongly buttresses your case. Meanwhile, you're editing in topics that I can see you were doing at least as far back as 2008. More interestingly, Tristan violated the ban by editing the Mokichi Saitō after you'd done it; complaining about an interaction ban violation and immediately proceeding to do the same thing is a good indicator of lack of good faith. His request to Drmies to sanction you is a good enough warning to himself; I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating his ban. Now: why would he be aware that you'd edited these pages if he weren't watching you? And why would he begin to edit in a completely new field so suddenly? The first question means that he's not leaving you alone, and the second means that you're right about him trying to block you. For this reason, I support unbanning you but leaving his ban in place. Nyttend (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nytend's proposal, undo the topic ban on Elvenscout only, leaving the topic ban on Tristan in place. My analysis is the same, Tristan violated the ban, not Elvenscout. GregJackP Boomer! 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing Elvenscout's interaction ban and retaining Tristan's, per Nyttend's analysis (with which I concur). I would also recommend increasing Tristan's block to indef, for wikihounding and gaming the system. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Nyttends proposal. Pass a Method talk 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Nyttend's analysis, with the admonishment to elvenscout742 to continue staying away from initiating interaction with Tristan as he/she has been doing. Zad68 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I was not made aware until now of any violation by Tristan. If I had, I would have taken the exact same action I took against Elvenscout. You'll note that the terms of the ban included not editing the same articles (not the same field) because that was part of Elvenscout's original complaint (and it's still part of his complaint--the "undermining" references). Let me add something, if I may: that the ban was voluntary, certainly on Elvenscout's part, is immaterial for the terms of the ban, but shows Elvenscout's good will (which I never doubted), and I was and am more sympathetic to their side than to Tristan's, whose good faith back in November I wasn't completely sure of, but the way the cookie crumbled at ANI, for better or for worse, was the interaction ban with no further actions taken against Tristan. (I hope I am remembering all this correctly, and EdJohnston looked over the terms of the ban as well.) If, as it appears (haven't looked at the diffs yet), Tristan broke the terms too (whether they did it first or not is immaterial) then a block is justified, of course. If I missed, somehow or somewhere, that it was brought to my attention, I am very sorry for it.

  So, if the consensus here turns out to be that Tristan is in fact hounding Elvenscout (something which I did not disagree with at the ANI thread and in conversation with Elvenscout) and their behavior is disruptive enough for an indef block, possibly a ban de facto or de jure, I have no problem with that (or with a continued injunction for Tristan to stay away from Elvenscout, and not vice versa). And let me point out, speaking of crumbling cookies, that the ANI thread could already have ended with that had more editors/admins weighed in. As it was, Anthonyhcole agreed with Elvenscout's charge, but that isn't enough in an ANI discussion to lead to such a drastic solution; the proposed and agreed-upon interaction ban was reasonable given the discussion. We've already had more admin commentary here in less than a day than we had at the ANI discussion that ran for two weeks. I could give you my thoughts on why that went the way it did, but that's mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, it looks to me as if you were fed a rather disingenuous story by Tristan — you didn't know because he didn't tell you. Another sign of bad faith and gaming the system by Tristan, it seems to me: Elvenscout is giving the whole story (I investigated and found nothing substantial that was missing or misrepresented), but Tristan gave only the tiniest threads necessary to show that a ban was violated, with nothing about what he happened to be doing or why he happened to know about Elvenscout's actions. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, Nyttend, and I wish that we had had more involvement in the ANI thread: Elvenscout had suggested to me some problems with Tristan's editing (which included a suspicion of involvement with a now-indef blocked editor--don't remember the name, but I'm sure Elvenscout does, and again I hope I'm remembering this correctly) after we got to work on Tanka in English. BTW, the situation on Mokichi Saitō is not so simple since Tristan was indeed the first of the two to edit it; it was Elvenscout revert of those edits that prompted my first warning. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been avoiding further comment here to avoid jinxing it (this is the first really positive input I've had with a problem that has been bugging me since September, and I thank you all!), but I need to clarify something: My edit to Mokichi Saitō was not a "reversion" of TN's edit. I mostly just cleaned up the refs. This is why I complained when Drmies reverted my edit, although I understand that TN was probably the one who misled Drmies into believing my edit had been in bad faith (it wouldn't be the first time). My edit was not an "interaction" with TN. TN's more recent edits, however, were obviously made in direct response to mine. Therefore, it seems reasonable that their edits should be taken as at least as much of a violation as mine. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• One-way IBANs don't work. A broad TBAN for Tristan would be a better solution. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• No objection to that. Whatever's the best way to un-sanction a good contributor without permitting additional disruption from a problematic one. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just for clarity's sake (if someone can do this better in terms of lay-out, go ahead and tweak). IBAN for Tristan, supported by Nyttend, GregJackP, Yunshui, Pass a Method, Zad68. Indef block for Tristan: Yunshui. TBAN for Tristan: Nathan Johnson, Nyttend. I support any unban of Elvenscout and any kind of ban for Tristan at this moment. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think if we are going to count GregJackP one way or the other, we need clarification. There seems to have been a misunderstanding, as neither of us was ever under a de jure TBAN, but my main problem now is that Tristan has been creating a de facto TBAN for me. GregJackP, though, seems to be in favour of a TBAN for Tristan. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban as well as/instead of an IBAN; Nathan's argument makes sense. Am I really the only one angling for an indef block? God, I'm an inhuman monster... Yunshui 雲‍水 23:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If it means anything, I'd support an indef block. Tristan noir has essentially been following me for five months now, and the only edits he ever made to Misplaced Pages before that were to an article he created that I can't even show you because it was blocked for being a blatant copyright violation. But honestly a poetry ban would probably work just as well, since he'll stop editing altogether once he is told he's not allowed hound me anymore. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting of all bans on User:Elvenscout742 and imposing topic ban on User:Tristan noir. Nyttend's analysis looks watertight to me, and it seems clear that Tristan noir has been hounding Elvenscout742 and laying traps in the hope of either provoking an inadvertent interaction ban breach or preventing the editing of a large number of items. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Response: My comments here may be wasted effort. It appears that Elvenscout742’s request above to modify or lift the interaction ban that we mutually volunteered to accept has now, through the zeal of various editors, been transformed into a general indictment of this user. That nine editors have cast a vote before waiting for my reply strongly suggests that any argument I offer is destined to fall upon deaf ears. I did not intend to try the patience of those present by my tardiness but my appearance was briefly delayed by my being placed under a 24 hour editing ban by Nyttend within one hour of Elvenscout’s opening of this appeal at WP:ANI. That troubled me briefly, as it seemed effectually to grant Elvenscout 24 hours to build a consensus while I struggled to dislodge the gag from my mouth, but c’est la vie where, in love as in war, all is fair. Nevertheless, let me attempt a summary, in good faith, of the situation as I see it.

1) The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.”

2) Elvenscout violated these terms, as he himself admits, with an edit to Mokichi Saitō. He asserts that his edit was benign and that there was no cause for this user to complain to an administrator. What he conveniently neglects to report is that my complaint involved two edits. The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. In the past few days, Elvenscout on his talk page here, here and here might be viewed as having violated the interaction ban yet again by referencing this user by name and recycling old personal attacks against me.

3) One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. It appears that said editors are merely blindly accepting Elvenscout’s allegations at face value. The diffs I offer immediately above and below this paragraph show that if anyone is guilty of hounding or gaming, it is Elvenscout.

4) Elvenscout’s representation that I followed him “around various articles” is made without evidence. His recent 24 hour editing ban, however, came about as a result of his following me directly to five different articles, not one of which he’d edited previously, as documented in my complaint here. This is the same behavior that Elvenscout exhibited with me previously and is one of the chief reasons I volunteered to accept an interaction ban originally. Without dredging up the entire, sad history, I offer only a few examples of Elvenscout’s pre-interaction ban hounding. I attempted to disengage myself from earlier controversies with Elvenscout with an edit on Sept 18 of Haibun but was promptly tracked there by Elvenscout with this edit on Sept 21. Similarly, I offered an edit on Oct 6 of Prosimetrum but was shadowed there, within hours, by this edit of Elvenscout’s. In each instance, Elvenscout had never edited the articles previously and in each instance he engaged this user, and other participating editors, in lengthy talk-page debates that, with subsequent Rfcs and dispute resolutions initiated by him, further disrupted progress on the articles in question.

5) Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Misplaced Pages from Dec 9 until Jan 20. He is entitled to his speculations, of course, but I don’t see why his idle daydreaming should be granted any particular weight in this discussion. No one is required to do more than they wish to do here at Misplaced Pages; all editing is voluntary.

6) Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban (and specifically Drmies’ decision that neither party was to edit an article the other editor had previously edited) somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. I’ve edited 13 articles (by Elvenscout’s count) since imposition of the interaction ban. A look at his edit history will show that he has edited considerably more. I will allow him to be his own accountant. My point, however, is that I’m thereby restricted from a much larger group of articles than is E. due to E’s prolific editing. And I am not whining about it.

7) Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind and, where editors other than Elvenscout have worked upon the same articles, I’ve had no complaints (and no controversies). No article on Misplaced Pages is the possession of any party, and much less does anyone hold a deed to his preferred field. Classical Japanese literature is somewhat larger, by my estimate, than a modest 13 articles and Elvenscout has room, and more than enough of it, to edit to his heart’s content.

8) Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Is seniority a factor in determining the issue here, viz., whether or not an interaction ban should be lifted or modified?

9)The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. As an aside, while Nyttend subsequently reverted my edits at Mokichi Saitō, he allowed the offending edit by Elvenscout to stand (since Elvenscout had unilaterally taken it upon himself to revert Drmies’ previous revert of the same). That, along with the timing of the block that has delayed my response, call into question Nyttend’s neutrality in this matter.

10) Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked.

If I’ve neglected anything in my comments, I’m confident that I can rely upon my old friend Elvenscout to point it out.Tristan noir (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to points where you mention me. (8) Elvenscout obviously was editing in this field before the ban, but you essentially weren't. I brought it up simply because it's part of the evidence that you're following him around and trying to get in his way. (9) You got Elvenscout blocked for editing an article you'd edited; what do you expect to happen when you edit an article he's edited? Who created the page is irrelevant; it's the fact that you're sticking to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit, a course of action that's generally seen as problematic. One final thing: I know absolutely nothing of Japanese poetry; the only reason that I got involved here was this thread. I was convinced that Elvenscout was in the right and you in the wrong, both because of Elvenscout's arguments and because I investigated and saw his statements to be true; I've never heard of either of you before, as far as I can remember, so I couldn't be biased or think better of one of you beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I don't know why I even need to bother at this point, since everyone present knows what's going on, but I will attempt to briefly explain TN's above misrepresentations anyway.

• • • The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.” Yes, I read it as meaning what it says: if TN "has been working on" an article, I am not allowed show up suddenly and begin editing it, which would be a clear interaction. One short series of edits several months earlier does not count as "being working on", and my making a benign edit to clean up the citations a bit does not count as an inappropriate interaction. At least in my reading.
    • The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. I didn't mention it (except in a parenthetical statement) because I felt it was irrelevant to my request to be allowed edit articles on classical Japanese literature. (Did I not say "that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban"? I also provided the diff, so that anyone reading could judge TN's words for themselves.) I did, however, point out that TN's noticing my edits to completely unrelated pages indicates that he spent the two months he was not editing articles closely following my edits. The fact is that it was not a violation of an interaction ban with TN, because it was a direct response to another user who brought TN up without knowing the facts. That user has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing/threatening me.
    • One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. By my count I have provided 33 diffs in my above post. TN's edit history clearly indicates that, when told he was not allowed interact with me, he stopped editing for well over a month, and his first edit upon returning was to complain about me. Shortly thereafter he started editing prolifically , in an area he knows I am interested in (no diffs -- just look at Talk:Uta monogatari/Archive 1 and Talk:Tanka prose for myriad examples of me showing TN my reverence for this area -- well, just the first time we interacted maybe). He must also recall that I created the article on uta monogatari, and he recently attempted to block me from editing the article on the second most famous uta monogatari, Yamato Monogatari. Why did TN suddenly become so interested in classical Japanese literature when he was told I was not allowed to edit articles that he have edited? And why, when he had only edited around 10 articles in his previous four years on Misplaced Pages, did he suddenly edit 13 such articles in the space of a week?
    • Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Misplaced Pages from Dec 9 until Jan 20. One has to admit, it is suspicious that between August 2008 and September 2012, TN made only about 30 edits, all to the same article, then when I edited that article he suddenly started editing on an almost daily basis, interacting with me constantly, and then he suddenly stopped editing for close to two months.
    • Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban ... somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. Yes, I do. And I specify the reason. I am not interested in "claiming" articles that I am not interested just to spite TN. His actions over the last few days clearly indicate that he is. Therefore, while TN is not prohibited from editing in his favourite area (apparently modern English poetry) at all, I am currently banned from touching the 14 or so articles on Japanese literature that he has edited.
    • Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind Which other editors has TN allowed to edit? The early history of the article at Uta monogatari clearly showed (at least until it got blocked for CO violations) that while TN will allow edits he likes, he will not allow edits he doesn't like. And this post clearly indicates that he doesn't want me editing these pages, regardless of how benign my edits were. Did he intend to add a link to Tōnomine Shōshō Monogatari to the article on Fujiwara no Takamitsu himself? Or would he have allowed another user to introduce that wikilink at some time down the line (who knows how many years that could take)? What is wrong with me introducing the link immediately? Given that the previous article I created was shortly accused of being an orphan, surely it is natural to want to link the article to its most obvious partner?
    • Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Actually, I agree that seniority is not so important here. That is why I didn't point out that actually my first edit to Misplaced Pages under this account back in 2005 (I edited anonymously for a while) was about Japanese literature (interpreted broadly, if the Kojiki is literature). However, the fact is that TN only started editing these articles immediately upon being told that he could block me from editing them. I don't know why he thought he could get away with such blatant gaming of the system, or why he thought I would not appeal the ban under such circumstances.
    • The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. Ummm... actually, as I have stated numerous times now, my initial edit was not a violation because it was an accident. It was made two months after TN's most recent edit. The edit that got TN blocked, however, was made nine hours after my most recent edit, and not long before he contacted Drmies making it clear that he was aware of my most recent edit and was unapologetic about editing the article nonetheless.
    • Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked. I have already posted on Drmies' talk page about that. Basically, he was confusing TN's meatpuppet Kujakupoet with the now-banned user who bizarrely cited TN in a dispute I was having with him, User:JoshuSasori. Also, it might be noted that TN was clearly reading my page User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal, as he referred to it in his first edit of this year. So he was clearly at least aware of my dispute with JoshuSasori.

And that, my friends, is why the previous ANI (and numerous other earlier attempts to deal with this problem) failed: TN posted a massive diatribe against me, taking various facts out of context, forcing me to respond in an equally lengthy post. It's a good thing some good admins were able to follow this problem before this happened this time. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Or look at the simple evidence before you here. Elvenscout has contributed eight posts and nearly 3000 words to this ANI thread. This is my third post and I’ve yet to hit the 1500 mark. True, he did have the minor advantage of a 24 hour headstart. How has he used it? To argue in self-serving fashion that Japanese literature “broadly construed” is his “preferred field” and one that others should not be allowed to trespass. One might humor his flawed logic if he were not on the verge of convincing others here that Japanese literature as broadly construed is indeed his personal possession.Tristan noir (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• My misremembering an association with a blocked editor (Elvenscout has cleared this up on my talk page already) has no bearing on this dispute: if Tristan had been associated with such an editor that wouldn't change the facts of the matter. I mentioned it to indicate that early on I was already convinced that one side in this ongoing dispute was more right than the other, not to taint the other side. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Break for convenience

Regarding the block, I don't generally see this kind of situation as an interaction worthy of a block, but in this situation, Tristan had seen it as an interaction, and since everyone should be treated as equals, I decided to respond to the situation on Tristan's terms. I would have hesitated anyway if I'd not been convinced that Tristan was editing in bad faith. Can we declare right now that Elvenscout is unbanned and then return to Tristan? Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that consensus was already pretty-well established. I am sure Tristan doesn't want to see me unbanned, but this isn't his decision. How does unbanning work? elvenscout742 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We say, "you're unbanned," and you are. Since I think I'm right in saying that all commentators so far have accepted that elvenscout should be free to edit again, I think it's safe to assume that the consensus is precisely that. You may freely edit articles on which Tristan has been working (although use your common sense and try and avoid getting into another spat with him - if you find yourself heading that way, ask for help). If anyone disagrees, this would be a good time to say so. As for Tristan, I've already said my piece, but the consensus seems to be to allow him to edit under some sort of ban - I'd propose a broadly-construed topic ban on articles relating to Japanese literature, myself. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems good. No one has been arguing for a narrow TBAN, but Nyttend mentioned Japanese "poetry" a few times. Banning Tristan from only poetry articles seems inappropriate, though, since of the thirteen articles I mentioned above, only three or four could possibly be taken as "poetry" articles. Japanese literature (broadly-construed) sounds like a good idea. I am also worried that without an IBAN (and I agree a one-way IBAN is problematic), Tristan might follow me to, say, Talk:Tales of Moonlight and Rain#Requested move 2, but a Japanese literature ban would prevent this. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I misread what you said originally about Japanese literature, thinking that you'd said just poetry. No objections. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is typical of the misrepresentation of fact practised by Elvenscout and is further reason why participants here should look closely at the diffs I offered in my response. Elvenscout, as I reported to Drmies in my original complaint and as I reported on this thread, did indeed violate the ban not only my mentioning me by name but by launching a personal attack here on Jan. 19. His exact words in that edit, contrary to his denial before Drmies, were: This is a reference to a dispute I had with another user, whose activities on Misplaced Pages were limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars. The user had also continuously worked to undermine my edits to numerous articles on Japanese poetry and art, and continuously relied on ad hominem attacks against me rather than reliable sources. The hyperlink leads the reader directly to my contributions page and the whole remark is placed conveniently, lest the reader not get Elvenscout's point, under the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir.

In a similar spirit, Elvenscout, in edits to his own talk page on Jan. 30 here, here and here, again violates the ban by referencing me directly while recycling for the thousandth time his old attacks against me.

These four instances, and the vitriol of the remarks made by Elvenscout in them, seriously call into question Elvenscout’s good faith and veracity.Tristan noir (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves, Tristan mentioned my name four times in his block appeal, so why is he allowed mention me by name and not vice versa? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked through contributions and followed links carefully, not knowing whether to trust Elvenscout or to disbelieve him because I'd never heard of you or him. This includes edits that I checked because I felt like it even though nobody had linked them; if Elvenscout were trying to frame you, I would have caught it. Yes, Elvenscout's comments are rather long, but why do you look at the speck of sawdust in Elvenscout's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to him, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from his eye. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Tell me Tristan: can you demonstrate that your activities on Misplaced Pages were not limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars?? How would you have me respond, when another user who knows nothing of our interaction attempts to misrepresent me as a disruptive user by pointing to your negative interaction with me? Should I just ignore it?? What about when that other user is threatening my real-world career and basing it purely on a misunderstanding about my motives? Or, did I accidentally threaten your real-world career by deleting the advertisements you posted on Haibun, Haiga, Tanka prose etc.?? If so, I apologize, but you really shouldn't have posted those links to Misplaced Pages in the first place, as WP:SPAM and WP:OVERLINK, as well as WP:ELNO, are quite clear on that. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout, I’m sympathetic to the straights you were placed in by Joshu Sasori’s real-life threat and I agree that his indefinite block for making that threat was justified. What was not excuseable, and what was a direct violation of WP:IBAN, was your dragging my name into your conflict with another user and, while doing so, taking the opportunity to attack me personally yet again. So, I’m sorry about your problem with the other user. Beyond that, my above comments stand.Tristan noir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As Tristan well knows from reading the page, I did not "drag his name" into anything. What he above calls "the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir" is not a sub-heading and he knows it. The page does not have original sub-headings as JoshuSasori's attack page did; it consists of a series of alternating quotations from JoshuSasori's page and my responses. The headings in the article contents are all JoshuSasori's original headings, but any other text he used has been marked as a quote. Since Tristan brought a specific edit I made to the page to the attention of Drmies, he must be aware that the code for the "sub-heading" as he calls it was "<blockquote>] - </blockquote> ".

I have now pointed this factoid out numerous times, and yet he has persisted in honing in on it rather than focusing on the problem. This is something he engaged in on Talk:Tanka in English and numerous other pages, where he will go off on rants about the publishing industry and completely ignore the actual content of my edits. THIS is why I volunteered to initiate an interaction ban with him, a ban he broke when he started closely following my edits despite not making any of his own, and when he tricked Drmies into thinking that I had reverted his edits to the article Mokichi Saitō.

Also, this discussion of whether or not I violated an interaction ban is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Consensus was already established that the interaction ban never should have applied to me because I did not make any disruptive edits, and the interaction ban has already been lifted from me. Now we are trying to disuss what should be done with Tristan noir: I therefore would like to politely ask Tristan to refrain from any further discussion of my behaviour, and instead focus on telling those present why he should not be placed under a broad TBAN for his recent pattern of disruptive behaviour. Perhaps he should start by explaining to us why he made a pointy edit to Tanka, a couple of spammy edits to Haibun, and the now famous edits to Mokichi Saitō, but otherwise showed no interest whatsoever in JLit until told he could block me from editing those articles and suddenly edited thirteen JLit articles in the space of a week.

elvenscout742 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Since not one commentator on this discussion (which has now been open for four days) has so much as suggested that elvenscout's IBAN be retained, I stand by my earlier statement, which I reiterate here for clarity: Elvenscout is, by community consensus, no longer banned from editing pages which have previously been edited by Tristan noir. The question now is whether or not to impose a topic ban, continued one-way interaction ban, or indefinite block on Tristan noir. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban/Interaction ban/Indef block of Tristan noir

Okay. I'm summarizing the above results in a table. If I can be forgiven for reading GregJackP's initial vote as being in favour of a TBAN (since he said "topic ban" twice, and seems to have simply misread Nyttend's proposal), and taking both Nyttend and Drmies as now supporting "any of the above" (whatever the majority consensus otherwise would be), it goes as follows:

-- elvenscout742 (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted GregJackP for his approval on my above interpretation. He did say he supported Nyttend's initial proposal, which was specifically an IBAN, so I guess we shouldn't count him out for an IBAN just yet. Also, can we take the TBAN topic as being "Japanese literature"? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed count myself (is this a community consensus or, being AN, an admin thing?), but I must admit to an ulterior motive for being in favour of an indef block: if Tristan noir weren't still around, this redirect could finally be dealt with. It only exists because Tristan noir unilaterally derailed an AfD, and despite his promise he has made no attempt to perform the merge that was suggested. Thanks to Drmies's fixing the page, a merge is likely no longer possible. But none of the proposed solutions (other than indef) address this minor issue. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding in a new heading since Elvenscout has had their topic ban lifted and the discussion has moved on to a discussion of sanctions that are to be applied to Tristan noir. I have no view in this matter, just merely making the threads easier to track. Blackmane (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I support a topic ban on Tristan, in the area of Japanese literature, broadly interpreted. GregJackP Boomer! 12:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Support some kind of action, elven shouldn't have to put up with nonsense, especially as elven is doing content development in an area that really requires a rare skillset on en.wp, consider my !vote to support any/all of the above. Zad68 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block. I proposed the original mutual bans because the content disputes were distracting both from content creation. The lifting of bans for Elvenscout has been well explained and dealt with. As soon as the ban was imposed, TN disappeared after only two more minor edits in early December. With no further contributions of his own (but obviously all the while keeping a close eye on E's contributions) TN suddenly re-appeared out of the blue at the end of January to report a "gotcha" breach to Drmies. There's been a spurt of editing activity since to suggest a "contribution" but I'm not convinced. The hounding alone is concerning enough. Time to shut this down and move on. Stalwart111 22:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You hadn't made a single contribution since 9 December. On 19 January, E linked to your contributions to give a current dispute some context. A breach of the IBAN? Sure, maybe. But the very next day, you popped up again, having just happened to log back in the day after he made that edit? And you just happened to be looking through his edits? And you just happened to find the "gotcha" moment you reported? So my questions are these - how is that not hounding? And, how many times did you have to log in during that month-and-a-bit of zero edits to constantly trawl his contributions for mentions of you? Your 24-hour response time suggests at least once-a-day. But it doesn't really matter. Your wiki-stalking is far more serious and disruptive than a taken-out-of-context, context-giving link that might have breached a voluntary IBAN, in my opinion. And the other editors seem to agree, to the point where E's part of the ban has been lifted. Serious enough to finally confirm you are WP:NOTHERE to actually build an encyclopedia in a collegial manner. Serious enough to warrant a block. Stalwart111 08:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)