Misplaced Pages

Following records 1-7

Possibly for IBAN if trouble continues. Won't be needed if editor stops communicating as requested. This has been much worse than problems with WE. Have never judged a person so badly, probably because online communication does not give normal cues to help assess interlocutors.

• OLD 1 sovereign state 16.34 13th NEW 1 lead
• 2 lead 14.23 9th ----------------------2 sov state
• 3 strawb 3.27 15th----------------------3 edits on my
• 4 barnstar 2.53 15th----------------------4 concerns
• 5 I want to 2.05 15th (lor)----------------5 I want to
• 6 edits on my 22.37 13th-----------------------6 barnstar
• 7 concerns 13.53 14th-----------------------7 straw

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User:P-123/Notes#Lead_.28Example_1.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User:P-123/Notes#Sovereign_state_.28Example_2.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User:P-123/Notes#Edits_on_my_Talk_page_.28Example_3.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User:P-123/Notes#Concerns_.28Example_4.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User:P-123/Notes#I_want_to_make_something_clear_.28Example_5.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User:P-123/Notes#A_barnstar_for_you.21_.28Example_6.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User:P-123/Notes#A_bowl_of_strawberries_for_you.21_.28Example_7.29

Lead (Example 1)

You will see my reordering of paras in the Lead and reasons for it on the Talk page. I don't think there was consensus on the positioning, though I know and I cannot remember if there was on the ordering inside the "criticism" para. This is an FYI just in case you think I have gone over your head here. WP:BRD seems the best way to make changes now that there are so few editors to discuss things with first. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 This has happened just after I have used a revert. I really can't see the logic of that. If you were looking for a deliberate way to wind me up you have found it. I will have to forget about guarding the document so that I can guard against you.(emphasis added by P-123) They are not primarily a terrorist organisation. They are a group that conducts ethnic cleansing. They are amongst the most criticised group that there has ever been. Do you think Britannica would have separated the two contents in the lead? I do not see that anything has changed since you made this edit with the fair justification "best to keep terrorist designation and criticisms together, not split between top and bottom". gregkaye ✍♪ 15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit was done with no thought of what effect it would have on the sensibilities of editors. My main concern is for the article, not editors. I had not seen the effect of the edit I agreed to earlier until yesterday. It gives a very bad impression to start this article with a barrage of criticism. That is profound anti-ISIL POV. I hope you realise "I will have to forget about guarding the document so that I can guard against you" is a WP:PA, and if it were not for you making it, I would do something about it. It is editors like you and Legacypac who does a fine line in the put-down who are driving me away from this page. I consider you and Legacypac to be exerting ownership of this page and am tired of defending it against you. No other editor stands up to you both any more. You both chase away opposition by taking "offenders", i.e. editors who cross you or disagree with you, to some form of arbitration or reporting them to "other parent". It has become very noticeable. This is no way to edit a page. I have tried to be civil with you since the last dispute, but this time will not forgive you. I was considering reverting, but in view of your WP:PA will not and will ping all editors involved in those discussions. I think we had better restrict communication to the main Talk page from now on. I shall not be returning here. P-123 ~ P-123 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 The lesser issue of terrorist activities has been left at the top of the page. The main criticism of the group is of its merciless killing of people. Terrorist is a Buzzword and, even if attractive to editors, its disproportionate use is unencyclopaedic and pushed according to POV. As I have previously stated I also think that this is dangerous. With regard to arbitration I have once done this long after having made appeals on the user talk page. You noted that comments were full of PA. To be honest I did not even notice the thread on the lead. I had been spending my efforts on chasing down information on the map images as requested and tidying up and relegating the section on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Criticism of claim as "Islamic State" and "caliphate" which was largely done because I knew that it was a topic that was important to you. gregkaye ✍♪ 16:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I noted one WP:PA. I have made edits following your suggestions on the Talk page as well, and thank you for that. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I also spoke before even realising that a thread on the subject had even been raised on the subject so apologise for that. I see your reasoning but consider that your POV priorities are wrong regarding the importance of the issues both related to each other and in relation to other contents. Do you think Britannica would have separated the two contents in the lead? gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. Not sure what you mean about designation. Legacypac (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac The current wording of what is fine? This thread relates to the movement of content without textual change. Feel free to delete this and move your comment if appropriate. gregkaye ✍♪ 17:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 You stated that you "consider the effect of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism." could you either add something like ".. from my original edit .." or remove or refactor some of the content. Any pinged editor coming straight to the content may assume that another editor made the original change. I also consider your comment: "gregkaye: Please remember that the consensus was to have the terrorist designation part at the beginning of the Lead and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this" to be unwarranted in all respects. gregkaye ✍♪ 17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done ~ P-123 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it? Your rhetorical repetition of consensus and unjustified comments on repeating content remain. I am also happy for you to delete my comments in reply. Your reactions to me with their sporadic accusations and insinuations (bold added later by P-123) varies depending on circumstances not in my control. I have always attempted to limit these kind of issues to User talk discussion. If there are issues then perhaps you can present them here. gregkaye ✍♪ 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict and I did not see your subsequent angry remark. I said on the Talk page that the edit I made was to an edit agreed on by editors as far as I remember, which last bit I have just added to satisfy you. I said on the TP there was consensus (1) to move the terrorist designation part to the top of the Lead and (2) on your "judging" wording. I cannot remember whether the ordering of that paragraph was agreed by consensus and said so. I knew there was no consensus to move the criticisms part back to the bottom again, which I did per BRD, and invited editors to comment. I cannot see what is rhetorical about that. Why can you not leave it at that? You are seeing into this more than is there. "Sporadic accusations and insinuations" I object to, as I was trying to show restraint on personal matters on the Talk page. Perhaps you would have preferred me to be frank, which I will be now as that it what you seem to want, and it is this: whenever an editor opposes you on a disputed point that has been much discussed, you tend to repeat at great length only in different words the arguments you have put forward before, and 'when anyone disagrees again with it, you press the point to destruction. I honestly believe it has been driving editors away. You probably got more than you bargained for there, but I think it is safest for me to be totally frank with you now. I am protecting myself here, not trying to help you, because I do not like the accusations you have been mounting against me recently, which I think are unjustified and quite insulting. I do not want to get involved in yet another of your squabbles with editors so would like to withdraw now. (bold added later by P123) I find this a very good example of the sort of childishness than I mentioned to PBS the other day that I seem to see everywhere I turn in WP now. As I say, I think it is best if we confine exchanges to the main Talk page from now on, although I have something to say about the UN and EU terrorist designation as I have looked carefully at Legacypac's links again and at the wiki article on the crucial UNSC resolution 1267. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Please note that I have not edited against consensus since the AN/I. As you also know, WP:CONSENSUS is about achieving Misplaced Pages's goal of being an encyclopaedia. As mentioned I do not think that a description of this group in isolation as terrorist is encyclopaedic. As indicated, I think it was gratuitous to say, ".. and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this". In regard to early conduct you have clearly said that you consider it fine for content issues to be raised on article talk pages and you have said that you think it is fine to respond to misrepresentations. This is exactly what I have done. Again if you want to mention accusations you have to be specific. Not being so is not fair/ Anything that I said, and I am happy for you to check, was in response to your content. On the other hand, the way that we have treated each other on the article talk page has been, as the phrase goes, chalk and cheese. In previous contents I justified what I said. You toss in words like squabbles while pointing to no specific content with the clear insinuation that all perceived fault was mine. This again is not fair but yes, unfortunately this is exactly what I have bargained for. Before replying to your last message I had decided that I would just present my case on the talk page and, unless an incorrect content or a misrepresentation of my content is presented, be done with it. Where have I otherwise acted differently? gregkaye ✍♪ 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus=never edited against but disputed later. Squabbles=you=Felino=Technophant=each as bad as the other. My impression=much repetition of same arguments (views) on Talk page and most "misrepresentations" too trivial to pursue. Agreeing/disagreeing=normal between two who have fundamentally different views but are not enemies, normal cut-and-thrust, concessions possible. Conclusion/advice (cynical)=don't take everything to heart so much, most people are not worth it, just say bugger to them and ignore it. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 In response to my "could you either add something like ".. from my original edit .." or remove or refactor some of the content", how does this constitute done. Nothing was done "to further clarify". Re your public remark: "this is getting ludicrous". It certainly is. gregkaye ✍♪ 00:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have written what I believed: it is "as far as I remember". What else do suggest? A blow-by-blow account of how that paragraph came to be written, who agreed with what? Do you think editors cannot read it for themselves? Do they need signposts to those discussions? Do you think they really care? If you wanted something more specific than my addition, you should have given clearer instructions. Are you trying to save face or something? Do you think editors will think the worse of you for my remark? They know I can be brusque and probably think "Oh, it's P-123 going off on one again". I cannot understand why you get so obsessed on these points. Is this a manifestation of your preoccupation with misrepresentation? Can no-one ever make a slightly critical remark on the Talk page without you making a big issue of it? You seem constantly to want redress for perceived slurs. Most people take this sort of thing in their stride on unimportant matters and probably ignore it when it happens to others. This is Misplaced Pages editing, not warfare between ISIL and Muslims or between Jews and Arabs. Come ON! And if you cannot see that this is a slightly bizarre cross between teasing and remonstrating, you don't know me. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 One "blow" would have done it, as was indicated in my earlier edit. My comment was:

• You stated that you "consider the effect of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism." could you either add something like ".. from my original edit .." or remove or refactor some of the content.

A direct result of this would have either been, "consider the effect, from my original edit, of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism" or "consider the effect of the second para, from my original edit, before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism."

I had stated: "Any pinged editor coming straight to the content may assume that another editor made the original change."

As I have previously requested, take responsibility for your words. You take the credit for the removal of "profound anti-ISIL POV" but you do not take same sentence responsibility for adding the "profound anti-ISIL POV". In the absence of you taking responsibility here for "profound POV", as said, a pinged editor may think that this POV was "pushed" by someone else.

Your editing content is up to you. You also rhetorically implied a lack of compliance to consensus and also implied actions based on distraction. I have never treated you like this.

You also make mention, in text above, of "accusations you have been mounting against me recently". Issues mentioned came in context. You have also previously made it clear that you don't like contents related to inter editor wrangling to be on display for passing readers to see. In response, I decided to place the related content in archive but despite this you seem insistent on dredging up the past. I am trying my best to do the right thing and honestly don't know what to do. gregkaye ✍♪ 02:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. First I moved up the terrorist designation part, editors agreed, then I moved up the criticism, editors discussed it all at length, altered parts of it, but agreed both parts should remain at the top. By that stage I honestly didn't regard it as "my" edit any more, but a joint decision, although I can see how it could be seen that way. I was shocked at what I/we had done, then changed it back, per BRD. Don't use kid gloves on me on the Talk page, btw. By lack of compliance I meant challenging consensus, as I explained, which you tend to do, but wasn't suggesting you would go against it, not since the AN/I, and don't think you would. I wasn't aware that you had moved the ISIS TP wrangling to archive. Did you? The memory of that wrangling is still very strong which is why I brought it up. I wasn't referring to users' Talk pages. You must do the right thing by your own lights and not concern yourself with what I or anyone else thinks. It does not matter what we think; no-one is going to take you to "court" again over what you do. I don't for one minute think you will infringe any "rule" but your disputaciousness can be a problem on the Talk page, IMHO. It is late now, but I will try tomorrow to think of a way to amend that wording. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have further redacted the comment, but I had already opened the thread by saying, "I first moved the designations as terrorist organisation part of the Lead to the top and the consensus was to keep it there. I think I made a mistake in moving the criticisms part of the Lead from the bottom to the top to join it. The first thing that hits when reading the Lead now is that second para of heavy criticism." Is that not a clear admission of "guilt"? I have added a "because" to make it even clearer. This is just one of many instances where you have tried to make editors retract or modify their comments and this is very bad practice indeed, IMO. You are lucky that I complied, and I am not surprised other editors have not. I have never known an editor try to do this before. You see it as "fairness", but to me it is thought-police behaviour. Please can you drop this now? (bold added by P-123 later) ~ P-123 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nearly seven screens of text generated because you didn't like one editor's comments is utter madness. You would think you had been libelled. What makes it worse is that I don't think editors will have even noticed. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

seven screens of text generated without meaningful response is utter madness.

As far as thought police are concerned, I can respond as I want and so can you. Please actually consider content.

A piece of advice that you have often given me of late is to try to resolve disputes on User talk pages and not let disputes spill over onto article talk pages. I have put a huge amount of effort into this but with little and perhaps no response from anyone but you and Worldedixor - and then Worldedixor disconnected after more issues were raised. I have certainly never had an "I see what you mean now" response from anyone else. WP can indeed be a battleground. In Positioning of "Terrorist designation" infobox Felino123 and Azx2 both delivered unjustified attacks on me in regard to consensus to which I am grateful that you said, "Would editors please be careful when they use the word "consensus"? Gregkaye is right, there was no consensus at this point." You have also forcefully argued some specific arguments regarding censorship activities on the page. Then in Talk:ISIL#Lead you said, "gregkaye: Please remember that the consensus was to have the terrorist designation part at the beginning of the Lead and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this." Please see: Freedom of speech. There have been attempts on the ISIL talk page to shut down talk page discussion before as in this instance which followed I think 2 instances in which I had gone against talk page Vote:consensus on the jihadist issue. Despite the context of a thread whose whole premiss was based on a stilted untruth I replied politely here. As was always the case with Technophant, my calmly presented question "On what grounds do you say that editors should "refrain from discussion here"? remained unanswered. I have neither been able to gain meaningful dialogue with certain editors at any talk page location and this has not been for lack of trying. I similarly don't appreciate your discussion shut down and pre-judgemental comment: "Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this." Its a new thread. Do you expect something such as a new reader to read back through all previously related threads before responding? You do not own the page. You do not own my responses.

In regard to your accusation of my "disputaciousness" you have previously stated that it is perfectly acceptable to defend against misrepresentations. See: squabble. I am quite in my rights to dispute what I consider to be unfairly presented arguments. If you disagree with this then dispute resolution is also available. Please, let's resolve things. I have made concerted efforts with you to achieve resolution with you as per User_talk:Gregkaye#My admission of wrong, my first thread since my mass archive, and in it I made a concerted personally initiated effort to clarify the lines. That thread is still open. I suggest that if you have further accusations of "disputaciousness" that this would be a suitable contextualised place to raise them. I echo some of Legacypac's comments. There are more important issues to deal with. If you have a disagreement then mention it. I will maintain my right to respond. There are no thought police. As per my reply to you here, "people can think what they like. the only issue is what they do".

The issue presented in Talk:ISIL#Lead presents a purported problem of a previous condition of "the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism" but you never once make direct comment that you were editor that instituted this seemingly heinous crime. Take another look at the lead in the state it was in before your edit. (Para 1: 4.5 lines of text al-be-it with bold type; para 2: 5 lines of text; paras 3-4: 12-13 lines on group history; para 5: 8 lines on the groups goals, ideologies and claims; para 6; 1+ lines mentioning propaganda and beheading, added by an unknown editor and the inclusion of which you disputed). Criticism is a big part the worldwide real world situation regarding this group. A change in section title from "Criticism" to "Torrent of criticism" would not be unwarranted. It has been unrelenting.

The second paragraph has now been changed from a content describing real issues to content that will likely be interpreted as international name calling and fairly so. Misplaced Pages, by "consensus" has not even got its names right. My clarification of the UN's response has already been hacked. Another thing at the back of my mind is that I think the workers at the al-Hayat Media Center may be quite happy about this resultant situation. gregkaye ✍♪ 10:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you not read my latest comment or seen my redactions? Drop it, Greg. Legacypac is right about the UN terrorist designation, btw. Read all the links he provided and the wiki article on resolution 1267, especially http://justsecurity.org/15014/isisisil-remains-al-qaida-security-council-so/ and http://www.wsj.com/articles/syrian-rebels-issue-demands-for-u-n-hostages-1409662075. You can get an unpaywalled version of the WSJ article if you google it. If you take issue with any of that, refer to Legacypac. I think the designation should stay. P-123 (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I will happily drop anything whenever I am enabled to do so. Please, if at any time you want to make accusations in the future, be specific and state the content concerned. If I then think I am wrong I will happily retract, apologise or whatever. You are quite entitles to think what you like and, in regard to any of your accusations, I will be quite happy to agree to disagree. In any case where an unjustified accusation of wrong is maintained regarding some unsubstantiated catalogue of offence or some such, I will respond.

In turn, if I make an accusation regarding a content that I think is unfair. An editor can either reply to say why s/he thinks the content is fair, give some other reply or not respond. There is no restriction. If you have a problem with this then please go to dispute resolution. Please see: the term "Rebel group controlling territory" is fake term made up in order to replace the term "unrecognized state". Compared to the responses of others I am extremely moderate. Why not tackle others as well. I also would like a collegiate atmosphere to further develop on Misplaced Pages. I think that part of this is the straightforward representation of situations. The consensus that you referred to related to the expressed views of four editors and was finalised in the context of your edit made on the view that it would be "best to keep terrorist designation and criticisms together, not split between top and bottom". All points were later made in that context. You understand the parameters of consensus and understand that this case is not beyond fairly presented dispute. I still do not understand your approach here or your framing of the discussion - but I have said all this already. gregkaye ✍♪ 11:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution? Nothing was further from my mind. I am really not bothered by this. I cannot understand it all, no other editor is like this. I think it is best to leave you alone not only on your Talk page but on the main Talk page as well. That way there will be no endless repercussions. (emphasis added later by P-123) ~ P-123 (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Similarly I don't experience "this" with any other editor. As mentioned, repeatedly mentioned when we have been in exactly this situation before. You are welcome to post where you like and I am entitled to respond as I like. I am entitled to respond to any responses I am given. Please do not complain about responses without taking issue with a specified content. A continuation of any dispute between us is equally your responsibility. gregkaye ✍♪ 12:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

They probably don't have the patience, Greg. They all walk away when it gets too much. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Can you please keep your WP:CRYSTALBALL to yourself. Again, you are entitled walk where you like and continue with what you like. You have stated that you think it is best to leave me alone on my talk page. Its your choice. gregkaye ✍♪ 12:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Please note your views on consensus as presented here. It would be appreciated if you tried to understand why I find your recent actions on the talk:ISIL so baffling. gregkaye ✍♪ 13:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I do now. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Thank you that also saves me the planned olive branch GregKaye ✍♪ 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign state (Example 2)

Hi, I just want to check that you realise the first thread on the page related to the listing of ISIL on pages such as Sovereign state and other pages that are populated by content on recognised nations? What are your thoughts on following sources on this? GregKaye ✍♪ 16:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The debate on whether how we should describe the group is mentioned elsewhere and I think that those comments are more appropriate elsewhere. Also ping Kahastok to perhaps avoid unnecessary clash. I hope that's OK. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye: Made that seemingly tangential comment deliberately. No real wish to continue an exchange with the editor. Had looked at some of those links but not in any great detail. Am not really interested into getting into it, wanted just to make a broad observation. Obviously RS sources have to be followed on this for a general statement in WP's voice, but it seems none can be found. Anything else will be OR, even my comment. Difficult. Better to spend the time looking for some RS than arguing technical points on what is and is not a state, unrecognized state, etc. I think, then reflecting them fairly in the article. The spark has gone of out my interest in ISIL and this article, I'm afraid. Really do prefer to keep to copy-editing it, though I may briefly add support to any editor's view I share. Good luck with Anasaitis; didn't realize they were anti-you until I saw the comments. P-123 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye: Ate my words! Did respond as the editor made an interesting point. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)<br\>

(bold added later by P-123)

I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but you continue to argue dirty.]] Lastly you made unfounded insinuation regarding consensus. Now its you state "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me"." You know enough about WP:OR not to have needed this point pointed but I honestly suspect that your pro-ISIL sympathies overrode all. You also mention "Any lawyer can weasel out of it" and infer that "facts" are being "twisted or denied" and then claim the use of sophistries. PLEASE see WP:INDCRIT. In regard to sophistries, if you are to make criticism on issues like rethoric then you should do so directly. You state that, "these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article". Sure. They are dealt with in the article. The article is here to present facts directly. However, you also state, "It is also a caliphate with a caliph, whether or not this accepted by anyone else". Read Caliphate. Would you state something like, "It is also the caliphate with the caliph". Please don't ignore all the objections. I appreciate that you only went as far as to suggest '"unrecognised state" seems a good description'. What happened though since the time that I was also questioning this, you added the tag "how?"? Amongst everything else we can't just ignore WP:RS. You know this and yet you still advocate a view that you "Cannot justify". Please, we have mentioned POV so many times. Please consider the above. I predict that I am likely to delete it anyway. You have mentioned that it is better to defer disagreement to User talk pages so here it is. You have gone from you making attacks without substantiation to now pushing content that, by your own words, you can't justify. There are some really basic principles of Misplaced Pages involved here. I really think you need to consider POV issues here and, yes, I do want to pin you down on this. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits on my Talk page (Example 3)

You are tempting me to ask for a WP:IBAN. (bold added later by P-123) ~ P-123 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• P-123 On what point do you disagree? GregKaye ✍♪ 22:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me while I make a totally unsolicited interjection. You're both clearly smart people and you've both, in concert, made tremendously productive changes to the Islamic State (excuse me, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) article. As a matter of fact, your symbiotic collaboration was rather frustrating to my own desires on that page. A cursory review of your interactions didn't reveal anything to me that would suggest the need for an IBAN. In fact, you two seem to have mutually supported a lot of quality work despite some inevitable stress associated with the type of work you two do. The things you have done together far outweight your disagreemetns and so I'd urge you to just let it go. Maybe take a break. Just don't let the stress of all of it get the better of you both. Cheers guys. GraniteSand (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• GraniteSand Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will add that the two of us have engaged in a lot of dialogue and that everything needs to be considered in context. Thank you also to the reference to a great deal of collaborative work but any editor can apply for what they like. I have presented content on a User talk page in regard to Article talk page activity and this was done for the editors personal consideration. My hope is that this matter is now closed. My preference is for User page dialogue in cases where this may be proven to work. In the mean time I am considering archiving this thread. (add: In the mean time I am considering archiving this thread on the basis that this may be the diplomatic thing to do). GregKaye ✍♪ 08:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

*Please do not refactor my Talk page, it is gross interference. I needed two versions of that message, one annotated and one not. I may bring this up. (bold added later by P-123) ~ P-123 (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 It would have been a kindness if you had noted that my refactoring of your talk page did not extended beyond your refactoring of my edit. Again I ask, if you are to present accusation (in this case through an implication of wrongdoing), please present diffs. As you know, the context was of edits, here, here, here, here and here. My refactoring was enacted here after which you deleted the thread here. GregKaye ✍♪ 09:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

*Unread. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 You did not provide, "two versions of that message, one annotated and one not." You did not go beyond a refactoring of my edit. In such a situation I would have no objection to you adding any relevant comments in sequence or at any appropriate point but please leave other editors contents in the form that the editor has presented. If you want to raise issue, then do so. GregKaye ✍♪ 09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

*Unread. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerns (Example 4)

As you know I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time. The conflict between this and our otherwise good working relationship until recently has always put an enormous strain on me which you may not be aware of. I am afraid your latest aggression was the last straw (bold added later by P-123) and from now on I will be putting the article first. This is to inform you that I have added my concern to Anastaisis' here. I am sorry it has come to this. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My concerns relate to what I interpret to be dramatic changes of approach that I consider you to have taken at various times. Just a short time ago you made this edit stating:

"==Thanks==

I am touched by your generosity, Greg, in view of the latest trouble. I accept that AGF gesture as I don't think sarcasm is in your nature. I wish I could redact much of what I said yesterday. You were very patient. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)"

Towards the end of a greatly protracted Misplaced Pages saga recently archived (with your thanks received for the archival) I ended by saying, "It would be appreciated if you tried to understand why I find your recent actions on the talk:ISIL so baffling". You responded, shortly after the edit above, with the gratefully received reply, "I think I do now".

When I am in the wrong, as you know, I admit it. Since your placement of the thread above you withdrew this content.

Please be aware that you may not be the only editor to reach a "last straw" type situation.

In regard to the above thread you deleted the "Sovereign state" thread from your talk page which had its last appearance here, yet, I think it was to your credit that you refactored your related Article talk page contributions here. Sincerely, thank-you for those changes made.

I have made attempts to tackle issues privately where possible. The issues raised with regard to your recent edits were: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:INDCRIT. I asked a question above, "On what point do you disagree?" Beyond your redaction of talk page content no answer was given. GregKaye ✍♪ 15:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The content placed here has been transferred to Legacypac's talk page as irrelevant to this discussion. P-123 you have posted here about your uncited concerns about my "conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time." One thing at a time. If you want to discuss issues that concern me I will be happy to hear. You were recently threatening an interaction ban. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Breathtaking disingenuity! You have known for a very long time exactly why I have found your conduct with regard to some editing questionable. I have never made any secret of it, either to you here or on the Talk page, and you know it. I have no more time or patience for your interminable analyses of every word I say, it is beyond a joke now! (bold added later by P-123) I hope the eavesdroppers are enjoying this, I certainly am. Twisting the tail can be fun! P-123 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor repeatedly described you as "vindictive". I defended you. You also have failed to justify your accusations yet you continue to WP:hound. I am the same person to whom you recently gave a barnstar of integrity. It's really up to you how deep a hole you dig for yourself. GregKaye ✍♪ 23:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Just hurry up and hug and make up Lor 23:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Lor its out of my hands but thanks. GregKaye ✍♪ 23:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to make something clear (Example 5)

Anyone has the right to walk away from a discussion, and move on. Your discussion with P-123 was civil yes, but when they wanted to walk away, you clearly did not let them. If they want to discuss it, discuss it! But if they just want to stop discussing it, and move on to other topics, then let them! Happy editing, just keep this point in mind. Lor 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As this clearly shows, they had been requesting for the discussion to stop. Look, when the discussion stops, the discussion stops. Unless it's an urgent matter which needs to be dealt with quickly, i see no reason why they did not have the right to stop that discussion, walk away, and move on. Lor 02:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lor I have been accused of concerning "conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time", "Breathtaking disingenuity", "conduct with regard to some editing questionable" and "analyses of every word I say". Then when the comment "I hope the eavesdroppers are enjoying this, I certainly am. Twisting the tail can be fun!" the excuse is "I was provoked". None of this at any point is given any substantiation. How is it right that an editor can come to a talk page without substantiation present insults and then demand silence as a condition that they walk away? GregKaye ✍♪ 02:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of only being human. In my honest opinion, it wasn't their fault. Everyone has breaking points where they can't keep their 'cool' of sorts. They have now refactored it, taken it back, and said sorry basically. Lor 02:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Lor, I personally think its a matter of not making accusation without substantiation. This has been a very long running issue and honestly I have tried my best. I invite you to read as much of the ISIL and other talk pages as you want. The core justification I am convinced is unfounded. Nothing is pointed to. It just goes on and on and I feel helpless. I ask for qualification and nothing ever comes. GregKaye ✍♪ 02:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to work in the article in question by any means. But due to the very debatable nature of it I would not necessarily suggest it Lor 02:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please Lor is it possible for the accusations to stop? I have asked repeatedly for this to happen directly. I have asked if there are issues or instances that can be discussed.

Throughout the discussion I have felt extremely pushed. I was not "enjoying this". The reason I did not stop the discussion was that the issue was not resolved. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (Example 6)

Lor: Thanks. The sad part is that we basically get on very well, although we are polar opposites on editing policy, though he would probably dispute that. ~ P-123 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I would be interested in your perceptions in the way that you think we differ in regard to editing policy to the extent of being polar opposites.

We have both contributed to a lot of threads since I first raised the issue of

On the ISIL Talk page a lot was said about jihadism and I was grateful for your support with regard to the later proposals.

There were also a lot of discussions where we agreed on things and/or worked constructively together:

• Propose scrapping timeline from main article 22:04, 27 October 2014
• Logos 08:01, 30 October 2014
• Restoration of deleted lead text re criticism 10:51, 31 October 2014
• Life in ISIL-controlled Ar-Raqqah 23:22, 1 November 2014
• Section 1: Index of names 22:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant infobox 08:27, 2 November 2014
• Lead 23:59, 8 December 2014

There are other discussions within which our disagreements have been in regard to article content:

• Diktats 17:44, 13 November 2014
• Lead references 12:32, 12 November 2014
• ISIL propaganda 22:48, 13 November 2014
• Infoboxes and Lead 09:09, 25 November 2014
• Positioning of "Terrorist designation" infobox 16:05, 1 December 2014
• No nation recognizes ... 16:35, 14 December 2014

We've had both agreements and disagreements on article content. Where are our differences on article policy to the extent of being polar opposites? GregKaye ✍♪ 23:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of discussion and 3D-ing I mentioned that I do not want to get into. (emphasis added later by P-123) I have struck out my comment accordingly. P-123 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I first raised this issue subtly within a post that I suggested be deleted purely for the sake of saving face. Amongst content I said:

• "I will not dispute your claim that "we are polar opposites on editing policy" but I would like to see it justified. Where do you think you are on with regard to editing policy? Where do you think I am?"

You took me up on the offer of deletion while dismissing content as bizarre and that was all. My simple request is that comments are not made about me or other editors unless they are substantiated. I have been making requests on this theme with you for a very long time. I don't want to get into this is the kind of thing either. There has got to be some give on both sides. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to drop this, to stop asking so many questions and making "requests" of this kind. (emphasis added later by P-123) You cannot police another editor's thoughts and actions in the way you have been attempting to do, for what seems like a very long time. You seem to have developed an obsession about this. P-123 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In midway edits of your reply to the half barnstar award you had commented, "...though he would probably dispute that". Despite this you still left the "we are polar opposites on editing policy" claim. Your thoughts are your own. I once privately expressed a desire to see this claim justified and subsequently posted as above. Perhaps I do have an obsession. This was a mild example but I have felt worn down and frustrated by unreferenced comments. I don't have anything more to say on this that I haven't said many times already. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant my comment as just that, a comment. Absolutely no criticism of you was intended. You must have a very short memory if you cannot see that. There have been many, many times on the main Talk page where we have (amicably) clashed over what NPOV means. You know it was only ever a professional disagreement. I cannot understand your obsession about what I think. I have never set out to damage you on the main Talk page, I have just expressed disagreement, as we all do with each other, routinely. That is what editing is about. Drop it, will you? P-123 (talk)

I didn't argue about what was intended. I have a pretty good memory the judgement was not necessary. True. Which that was. I also think that many of your interactions with me on my user page have also been constructive. You have done more than that. I will represent myself. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"The judgment was not necessary." Please stop behaving like thought-police, and please stop posting comments. (emphasis added later by P123) P-123 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you! (Example 7)

P-123 Please, I would prefer an end to the accusation without substantiation. Can you agree? GregKaye ✍♪ 03:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I have thought about what you said about me being vindictive, as I was quite shocked by it. If I am completely honest, I have to admit to it, in the last few days. (I still insist I never felt this way about WE.) I wanted to hit back after being as I saw it accused injustly of some things, but I went too far and apologise. I also felt harried by the questioning of my every word, so I harried in return. You do not see that you harry sometimes, you see it as wanting answers to questions. I have always genuinely found it puzzling why you need to ask the questions, as the answers to me are nearly always blatantly obvious and cannot understand why you cannot see them. I now think your questions are not disingenuous and that you really cannot see it. Your constant questioning of everything is in your nature and mostly that is a good thing, but it can be trying sometimes. Yesterday I completely lost it as I felt goaded too far by the perpetual questions and the remonstrations. I hope we understand each other better now. Please be reassured that I bear no grudges and harbour no ill feelings over this. P-123 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about "pro-ISIL" on the Talk page. Hope you can answer it. It may help you, because I suspect some editors may be accusing you falsely of being anti-ISIL. I began to see this after we spoke about it the other day. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Re: yes of course. I have got to say this because I have been stewing on it all day. Why did this take so fucking long? I really think It would be good for you to ask yourself this. Again and again I have asked this one thing. I have initiated whole threads with you to try to achieve resolution. You have left me frustrated with claims of past wrongs, POV and anti-ISIL leanings, but its the wrongs where you seemed most to want, as I see it, to keep me on a hook. It is also this that I see as a parallel to a vindictive side of personality.' WP:PA (bold added later by P-123) Of course you have other sides as well but out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

On anti-ISIL I will be adding pretty scathing comment on the use of the prejudice and discrimination referenced Misplaced Pages neologism. I am about to have dinner (sausages) but, as always, will let you know in advance of content. I do not enjoy the humiliation of others and will delete related content to anti-ISIL content on my talk page. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Am adding this in, Greg, before I read your next: Re "anti-ISIL", I had already made up my mind that if any editor starting attacking you on this, I would warn them off. You have to believe me on this. I think you can be as scathing as you like, given the remarks you have had on it, (especially me. ) I think people need to realise where you are coming from on POV/NPOV, or "anti-ISIL" should I say, as it is less obvious than first meets the eye. I think I understand it now.

I am sorry to have put you through it, Greg, I really am. I did sense something like that today and felt guilty. I ran amok yesterday, I was reckless. I was out of my mind with frustration. Thinking about it today, it was like two cats fighting and chasing each other down alleyways, pausing now and then, spitting and caterwauling, knocking things over, fur standing on end (on different usertalk pages!) Though at least I think the onlookers realise that basically we get on well. On the questions, I had no idea getting answers was so important to you, though had I had stopped, I would probably have divined it from the way you were asking them. One thing I am clear on, I never intended to keep you on a hook, about anything. I am not like that. I don't like to torture or taunt and hate people who do that. It seems cruel and underhanded to me. It is a pity online communication cuts out all the visual cues that help one to assess the other person. It is a real problem. Also, we had gone through all those things before and I simply couldn't understand why you wanted it repeated. It was only going to be more of the same, nothing new., though you weren't to know that I suppose, and that is the crux of it, isn't it? But that is why I was so irritable about answering questions in detail. I will keep off criticism unless I can justify it to you directly in future. I am pretty tired of the constant battles on the ISIS page and yesterday was a real crisis point. Could go on, but that is perhaps enough. I think we are harmonious on the main Talk page again, aren't we?

Don't know why I got a half-barnstar. Felt a fraud, as I don't think I deserved it, as I didn't walk away – that only came with Lor metaphorically throwing a pan of water on us both to stop the fighting.

I hope you don't think I was being frivolous in those descriptions – was hoping to cheer you up a little. Hope you are in better spirits tomorrow, Greg. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 On harried: This is my perspective. I am not litigious. I try to resolve issues with editors in often subtle ways through talk page intervention and you have seen this with efforts with Technophant and Felino. When I get into discussion with you however the discussion goes on and on to, for me, an exhausting extent. Then I make my edit on the article talk page and then you see the point. I can't cope with this. I know it is perhaps a weakness but I have got short on patience in various situations. I didn't want to get into another pointless argument but, through my loss of patience, we still got into pointless arguments.

P-123 Anti-ISIL is basically a term stating discriminatory POV. It indicates prejudice and it invites people to defend. This is your usage on your user page, "Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? In my opinion at the moment the article is not always spoken in a neutral voice, which is against one of Misplaced Pages's main policies in WP:FIVEPILLARS. Remember you can add your voice to the Talk page discussions on anything and if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion..." I take this as an encouragement to confrontation under a discriminatory banner. In the article talk page you have raised a question and yet, even when the spotlight is clearly on you as the major initiator of the phrase, you give no answers. I think it very likely that editors saw the anti-ISIL references repeatedly used and just came up with an opposite. I am really unsure of your motives in starting this thread, for not presenting information but pushing for information from others. Please consider whether the use of the term has a positive effect on the collegiate nature of the talk page.

On another point I wonder whether you would have got to your "of course" in a context in which I had not developed the perspective of situations as mentioned or if admins were not involved. ]] (bold added later by P-123) GregKaye ✍♪ 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 No, I don't think that you have suddenly switched. The great things that I see and continue to see in you stand. The last time I edited this page it looked like this. In my response I was careful to say "Of course you have other sides as well ..." and "side of personality". I acknowledge your many strengths. Even in a context of pressure I acknowledged you as a "phenomenal editor". I hold to that as well and perhaps I should have written more about this in my content above and am sorry that I didn't. Amongst other things I have always appreciated your questions. You have raised issue of ad hominem and, as with all the things you say, I will seriously take this into consideration. We have had deep and productive discussions.

(Points that I have raised raised with you have not, as far as I remember, been questions. They have been comments on entries on the article talk page that I have regarded to have unjustified content or bias (I'm looking for the right word but am tired) presentation. The reference to consensus was one example).

I am considering collapsing this conversation up to the point of my "On anti-ISIL.." statement in my second post and archiving this page as I think that this may be the best diplomatic way forward. I would certainly appreciate comment on any reason that this would not be beneficial. I made a mistake in not splitting the thread with regard to the why did it take so long and the anti-ISIL contents and should have allowed these contents to develop separately. If I do collapse content I will be more than happy for contents and response to the why did it take so long issue to be moved into the uncollapsed area of text. Lor, it may be appropriate to decide with P-123 whether the your unilateral collapse in content is for the best. Prior to the placement of an IBAN I think that P-123 has a right to speak in all cases.

I have really wanted to get the issue sorted out regarding the bringing up of uncited accusations. Progress seemed to have been made on this when I dedicated a thread to this and then, in my perception, things slipped back. In this context I raised the question "Why did this take so fucking long?" I also raised question (raised indirectly due to my bad writing) as to 'whether you would have got to your "of course" in a context in which I had not developed the perspective of situations as mentioned or if admins were not involved.' This was another thing that I wanted you to consider. You have done so and have given your answer. We have had a long history of deep discussion related to motive related issues and, at this point, I consider this to be in order. We have a history in which you have come back again and again to the presentation of uncited accusations. I want this to stop and permanently. On a personal basis I request that you give thought to any reason for your presentation of accusation and interference in this way. As I say I want it to stop. If the only way that this can happen is through an IBAN then so be it. Despite their regularly exhausting nature I have valued many aspects of our communications. Yes I have lost patience in regard to various issues. Yes I have lost trust. "Test everything and hold on to the good". I am sure that a lot of good with regard to continuance of our communications remains.

I am open to rebuilding.

GregKaye ✍♪ 04:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget the IBAN, not needed if we can keep civil. I want no more criticism of the other from either us, please. Yes, they were comments more than questions. No more deep questioning, please, as it drives me to distraction and you know what happens then. No more long exchanges either, please - the length of threads was getting out of hand. If you interpret comments as accusations, the communication will have to stop. (bold added later by P-123) Constant surveillance and unilateral closing of discussion, i.e. policing, (not by you ) I find intolerable. I have lost patience as well and will find it hard to communicate without mutual trust, so you will have to bear with that. I am not interested in rebuilding but will not refuse contact. P-123 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

General statement on my approach If there are truths that I think need to be mentioned related to article talk page activity then I will mention them. I would prefer to broach issues on User talk pages so as to avoid embarrassment and potential conflict in a more public arena. This is still not ideal as offending content may be left on public display for an additional period of time remaining unchallenged but, in my view, this may often be better than raising the issue in public display. GregKaye ✍♪ 19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL (Example 8 WP:PA)

Editor who cannot take criticism resorts to attacking critics. Have never come across this before in WP.

P-123 as you know I take exception to your use of anti-ISIL terminology at this point as a sort of call to arms for editors to fly into any level of unresearched argument that you seem to advocate. Again you are using the arguments of discrimination with use of "anti-ISIL" to, I think, push according to your own POV priorities. Its comments like this and comments as you have added to the already prejudiced thread "Ham fisted lead" that seem to me to be aimed at a rounding up of support. I have already raised issue on this so forgive the directness. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Next stage

Won't be one. Sanctimonious prig, underhanded and deceitful. Really shocked, worst misjudgment ever, though should have seen warning signs in disputes with others. Scurrilous, vicious, low, nasty piece of work.