User talk:HighInBC/Archive 65

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

How can I help?

@StevenJ81: Regarding this post, what are you asking from me? It seems like you are asking me to provide administrative assistance in an area where there are significant content disputes. I have been involved in such disputes as the depiction of Muhammad in the Muhammad article, and the showing of Rorschach ink blots on the Rorschach test page. If you are not familiar with these disputes they ran very high in magnitude and emotion.

I am not a stranger to being either an administrator or an editor in the difficult areas. It is not clear to me from your post specifically which area I can lend my efforts to. Could you please point me to the locus of this contentious topic area you speak of? I will certainly give it some of my attention. Chillum 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Truth tell, I should have left your name out of it, and I apologize for that. I actually softened my original, more sarcastic phrasing: I was a little underwhelmed at your describing yourself as "heartbroken". But probably you were, as I am: assume good faith.

Honestly, Chillum, this whole incident is only a very little bit about what Malik did or did not do, and whether it was or was not appropriate. This incident is collateral damage from the fact that the whole Israel-Palestine issue, and probably some other topics around here, are flat-out broken, and flat-out do not work.

What people like us need to do is a top-to-bottom re-evaluation of the basic tenets of how this project works when it comes to areas this contentious. There are, at this point, a great number of rules as to how things are supposed to be done around here. And in many parts of the project, these rules work. But they don't work in this area, and I personally think the approach to areas like this needs to be scrapped and built over from the beginning. In my mind, the justification for doing so is clear. These areas, de facto, are not open to people who want to edit collaboratively and constructively. The inmates are in charge of the asylum. So we might as well concede that these areas are not really open to everyone to edit. And if that's the case we might as well restrict editing to people who have a track record of wanting to build a good encyclopedia, instead of leaving editing to the inmates.

I'm not sure how to start doing this. But if we don't do something like this, incidents like this will continue, and serious contributors will continue to drift away from Wikipedia. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, areas with disputes that just won't die are my speciality. I don't think I will solve the world's problems but what I can do is offer a neutral hand in an area where I sincerely have no strong opinions on. Where would you say is a good place to lend a hand? Chillum 18:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, from personal experience, I agree with StevenJ81 that there is a serious problem in Israel/Palestine and similar geopolitical issues. I'm loathe to a priori restrict editing to a certain "class" of people. I'd much rather if we could give everyone enough rope, but quickly bounce people who cannot maintain decorum—first temporarily and then permanently if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am guessing from past experience in contentious areas that there is a talk page with dozens of pages of discussion and an archive as long as my arm. Could you point me towards the area where an uninvolved administrator willing to wade into murky waters could be useful? Chillum 18:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I don't necessarily disagree with Avi, but please see the following, which I was writing at the same time.)

Good question. Let me think overnight on that. (Seriously.) Part of the problem I see, Chillum, is that on occasions when I have tried to offer a neutral hand, I've gotten my head handed to me. (Disclaimer: I do have an opinion on these topics. But if you look at past AN/I's on, for example, United Synagogue, you'll see that I bent over backwards to keep my feelings out of it, until I snapped myself, and immediately withdrew.) If you've got a thicker skin for that stuff, G-d bless.

But I also don't know that trying to intervene as a conventional neutral party here is going to help much. The process itself is dysfunctional in the Israel-Palestine topic area. Avi and others suggested over on that page that ArbCom really needs to clean up a lot of the fundamental issues that resulted in this incident in the first place. I agree. So if there is anything you can do right away, it's to start thinking about appropriate suggestions to give ArbCom about managing topic areas like this.

Beyond that, as I said: I'll give it some serious thought. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing from you. I am happy to take up your challenge in the spirit of productivity it was given in. Chillum 19:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No need for intervention at this second, I think, but here is a "talk page with dozens of pages of discussion and an archive as long as my arm" if you want an example 8-) [or should it be 8-( ]: Talk:State of Palestine -- Avi (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will read through the talk page, and then the archives. I will pay particular attention to the good work being done by Malik and others. I will also try to figure out problematic behaviour and the inevitable recurring personalities(sock puppets). I will then see what I can do. Chillum 19:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who works a lot in WP:ARBPIA and might be one of the lunatics who are in charge of the asylum, perhaps I can give my opinion. One of the main problems is the routine sockpuppetry. Wikipedia does not have a system to deal with determined sockpuppets. This guy, NoCal100, is for example, a real artist, with some of his socks undetected for years. Some sockmasters (like this guy) are pretty easy to spot, but more subtle, and more civil, POV pushers are quite hard. It is often quite easy to see when people are editing to advance one side in this area. But, unfortunately, it needs domain knowledge, because so much of the propaganda claims in this area are plausible enough for an uninvolved editor. Thus, "uninvolved" admins focus on conduct issues, and disregard content. Unfortunately, it is quite labour intensive to investigate socks, because, on the one hand, you need some editing history to compare, and on the other, the long editing history makes detecting it quite hard. If I did more of it, I would barely have time to write content. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly pay close attention to the additional tools that the discretionary sanctions provide. It appears that both arbcom and the community have had a lot to say on the matter. I will be sure to read up on all of that too. I clearly have a lot of homework to do before I do anything else. Chillum 19:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: That brief summary was helpful to my understanding. Thanks. As you see, I'm inclined to be more aggressive than, say, Avi in overhauling the rules in areas like this. I wish I didn't have to be. But at some point the "creating an encyclopedia" part of this gets lost in the rules. And as things things stand right now, the people least likely to edit in this area are people committed to "creating an encyclopedia", while the people most likely to edit don't give a rat's ___ about it. And on a macro level, that doesn't work.

There are all kinds of editors all over the place who are in it for reasons other than "creating an encyclopedia", but for the most part the excesses get squeezed out eventually. But not here. So in my view, somehow, we've got to figure out how to limit participation here to people committed to "creating an encyclopedia". And we have to do it explicitly, because trying to be laissez-faire about it and eventually squeezing out the excesses isn't happening here. The question of how to do so, though, is tough. I don't know if the idea of a (really material) minimum edit count is really right; I just threw it out there. But right now, it's the Wild West. And good guys are getting shot. And at some point maybe the marshal has to restore some order. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: To be honest, I actually have no clue how to fix this problem. WP is basically incapable of dealing with sockpuppetry, where socks just create a new account when the last one is blocked. Actually, my own viewpoint on this matter goes in the opposite direction. In investigating these socks, I have actually found them sometimes doing decent edits. They have some interests in niche topics and sometimes remove blatant propaganda from the "other side". In this area, I generally agree with John Stuart Mill that the Devil's Advocate is a useful thing. But my opinion has probably more to do with my temperament than anything else. I doubt you will find many other supporters of this viewpoint in this area, who are just sick and tired of socks, and might consider draconian sanctions. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, Here is another example; look at the history on Second Intifada. What LoveFerguson is doing is completely and totally unhelpful and should be stopped. Do I have a personal POV on the issue? Sure. I'm pretty sure Zero0000 does too, and it's almost certainly opposite mine. But when editing these areas takes the requisite time, glacially slow perhaps, eventually, even people who come from different points of view can reach consensus. But when someone starts tossing fireworks into the nitroglycerin pool, editors who try and toe the line get very frustrated, and I wouldn't blame anyone on that page from losing it. I'd almost counsel you not to dip your toe in those waters, it's guaranteed to cause you heartache. :( -- Avi (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And Chillum, based on what I know about Avi and Zero0000, I'm pretty sure that if the two of them could work together on it and be left alone, they'd come up with something appropriate and useful. Neither of them would be extremely happy with it from a POV POV, if you will. But they could get to something they could both live with as a reasonable, neutral view of the situation. As things currently stand, there is no incentive for extremists to let experienced, dedicated editors hash something out, and every incentive for them to throw fireworks in. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, StevenJ81. Please forgive my hubris, but one of the moments I am proudest of in my on-wiki interactions was how the Ahmed Yassin image discussions were handled. There were a number of issues with that article, but specifically Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 2#Better picture?, Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 2#RfC: Should the image illustrating Yassin be changed, and Talk:Ahmed Yassin#Image selection for the Ahmed Yassin article. In summary, it took 5 months, but we reached a consensus as to which image to use and why (and it wasn't the one I originally wanted either). Yes, tempers frayed a bit, but overall editors like nableezy, NickCT, Cullen328, Sadads, and Cptnono were able to discuss the issues like adults and the article is much better off now. Unfortunately, in Israel/Palestine, interactions like that are more the exception than the rule. I could wax poetic and pedantic as to why, but I'd be abusing Chillum's talk page 8-) . The question is, how do we make it better?!?!?! -- Avi (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of not abusing anyone's (main) talk page, I invite interested parties to continue at User talk:StevenJ81/How do we make it better for further discussion, and maybe sketching out answers. Chillum, you're invited to cut-and-paste or copy-and-paste what's here to there, if you want, but I don't want to presume to move anything off your talk page without your consent. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at my archive would show that I am used to far greater abuses of my talk page, even recently. This is one of the more productive things to take place on my talk page. StevenJ81 this conversation is welcome to fill up my talk page and even my archives(which are already long). However if there is a location better suited also feel free to move this there for me and I will follow. Chillum 20:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Up to you. But I think maybe a specific designated page is better, if for no other reason than to keep your general talk page clear for more routine business. What I think I'll do (but probably not today US EDT) is create a little template for here (and other interested parties' talk pages) to direct people to the locus of the discussion. (A template at the top of the page is better than a mere note on the page because the note is likely to be archived eventually.) After I've done that, I'll get everything set up over there. Meanwhile, keep going here. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the ideal use of my talk page would be to discuss how to improve the quality of these article's neutrality. I really cannot think of more appropriate content here. Chillum 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I propose: I'll copy down to here over to my page. Continue the discussion below, on improving articles' neutrality, right here. Over on the other page, let's discuss more radical possibilities. I am firming up in my fundamental belief that a necessary (though possibly not sufficient) condition of fixing this is to find a way to really exclude people who are WP:NOTHERE. So I'd like to talk about ways to do that. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done I'll leave a pointer:

StevenJ81 (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What is missing

I am curious to know what is missing from the situation? Are there specific problematic users(no need for names) that could be dealt with which would result in a significant improvement? Do good faith editors need a clear framework to engage each other in a productive fashion? Would specific things like the rigid enforcement of 1RR or clear requirements of consensus prior to editing help?

If you look at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions you will see that I have a very wide latitude in regards to how I act. However when given such sweeping powers it is crucial to make sure that ones actions reflect the desire of the community at large. I need to know where there are issues and which steps are ideal to respond with. I fully intend to do extensive research on the dispute prior to using any of these tools but some advice up front would be helpful. Chillum 21:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 1RR. 1RR doesn't do much to stop socks, and I tend to think 1RR tends to trip up experienced and well-intended contributors who make true mistakes at least as much.

As to "clear requirements of consensus": sure, in theory. But consider the case of Jerusalem. There was an extended period of discussion about the article lead, forget the rest. And eventually a text was settled on. And ArbCom enforces it (I think). But I don't think we can really afford the time and energy for that protracted a process for every article in this topic area. The only other way that I can think of to enforce consensus is for every page to be fully protected, with administrators making changes only after a consensus is reached on the talk page. But even there administrators will sometimes have to draw a line and call discussions to a close, notwithstanding objections from the peanut gallery. Is there any other way to enforce consensus? StevenJ81 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

But to answer your earlier question: If you can find a way for good-faith editors to engage each other in a productive fashion without having to constantly battle people who are purely agenda-driven, that would go a long way to fixing this problem. If. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be done, but it takes patience on the part of all those involved. In a semi-humorous vein, If we tag a section with traffic cones stating "Warning, Consensus discussion taking place, traffic may be delayed for the next 3 months" and then have an uninvolved admin or two stop in daily to "clean-up" anyone not taking part in the discussion civilly, that may help. But it comes back to 1) patience: it may take weeks or months to iron out the issue and 2) compromise: Nobody is going to have the article look exactly as they want; people have to be able to clearly state and persuasively argue as to what is necessary and why and what can be restated and how. It needs very different skills than the rest of the project. -- Avi (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

One crucial thing I have encouraged people to do in the face of filibustering is essentially create a consensus to ignore people making arguments that have already been addressed by the community and have no new evidence or ideas presented. Another very effective way of managing filibustering is to make sure that a certain topic or dispute is covered only on an article talk subpage. This allows the primary talk page to be more productive.

Again, without more homework I cannot say these tactics are suitable here, but have been very helpful in reducing the disruption caused by intractable disputes in the past.

Particularly the practice of isolating problematic areas of dispute to a subpage with consensus has been very helpful in allowing the primary talk page to be used to resolve more mundane issues through reasonable discussion. I know from experience that a major dispute can prevent even the most minor of improvements. Chillum 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Citation Issue

Hello,

So Miesianiacal seems to get consistently angry at me because I apparently don't use the proper citation techniques. I wish to continue editing as I use verifiable source material. However I Don't wish to get into an argument over seemingly minor citation errors, and seemingly every time I edit a page He Pops up saying I've done something wrong.

If He (or anybody else) would just take the time He uses to get angry with me to fix the citation error all would be well and good. As far as I'm Concerned wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project (one person can't do everything).

I just don't wish to get into an argument where there really is not one to be had.

I think dealing with Him Directly Would Only Cause More Conflict as he seems to be rather set in His Opinions.

How do you suggest I Handle this situation with Him ?

Michael Drew (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The consensus at ANI is that you are being helpful. If this person continues to bother you about this please point out the ANI closure, if it continues then let me know. Chillum 19:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That being said, learning the reference templates is not too difficult and would dramatically enhance your already wonderful contributions here. Chillum 21:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There are a couple of helpful Gadgets for this purpose that you can turn on at your preferences page, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Brad Dyer

I'll understand if you would prefer not to get more involved in this shitstorm, but your even-handedness so far has impressed me, so here goes:

It appears that Brad Dyer has now been blocked indefinitely, which seems problematic given that he will now be unable to respond in the case. Also, the blocking admin is the same one who unblocked Malik. So we have an admin who has abused tools and responded with sustained incivility unblocked and a user who has, at worst, done the same blocked indefinitely. This really gives a poor impression wrt even-handedness. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.14 (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Considering the issue at hand I think the place for this to be looked at is WP:ANI. This is something to be decided by the community not one person. That fact aside I would not be unblocking this person myself, not if I was that last admin on Wikipedia. Chillum 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Chris Janson

It's happening again; see here. I asked the user on their talk page why they're removing sourced content, and got no answer, just further blankings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears the user is already blocked again. Chillum 03:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HighInBC. You have new messages at TheAccountCreatorMan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Minor housekeeping request

Chillum, would you blank my immediately previous talkpg please. (It's 146.200.32.196) An edit filter rule blocked it. Sigh. My summary was "rm old msgs from own (dynamic ip) pg." You'd commented in the now-closed 'marsupial' thread at ANI that the msgs generally related to. The temp page I'd used has already been deleted. Thanks, Chillum. 80.229.177.245 (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We tend to not blank discussions, rather we keep them as archives. I am not sure what topic you are referring to when you mention "marsupial". Chillum 20:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

By "marsupial" I was referring to the now-closed (and manually archived today) Koala15 ANI thread. As for the request about the talkpage I simply wanted to empty the now pretty much redundant text (including the noautosign bot instruction I'd added, which the next person allocated that ip won't need), rather than leave it standing for time immemorial as a testament to how I utterly wasted my free-time these past two weeks. It would've remained in the history anyway, just in case anyone should ever truly need to read "howcomeip >>different strokes for different folks & you gonna post foo? >>meh in bits prolly". I give up. 80.229.177.245 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, we get a lot of animal names around here. It appears the IP is being used by a new person, I have replaced the old content of the page with a welcome to the new anon user. Chillum 21:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 80.229.177.245 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Shane McAnally

Any chance I can get you to watch Shane McAnally too? As with Chris Janson, I'm experiencing an editor, Ellesmacksongs (talk · contribs), who claims to be an employee of Shane's and is constantly scrubbing any mention of Shane's 1999 debut album from the article, in addition to moving the list of songs that he has written back from List of songs written by Shane McAnally to the main page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added the page to my watchlist. May I suggest you point out our conflict of interest policy to them. Generally modifications that have not been discussed on the talk page can be reasonably reverted, particularly if they show a significant bias.

If the user fails to engage on the talk page and does not accept being reverted then I can certainly take action for disruptive editing. This user so far has not been edit warring and their behaviour seems to be based in ignorance of how we work. A bit of education might go a long way. Chillum 00:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Chris Janson

It escalated; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Off-wiki_threats_regarding_Chris_Janson. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that you have escalated this, it needs attention. Chillum 06:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The agency I was asked to contact got a hold of Janson and said that he wants the Williams info removed for "personal reasons" that he does not want to divulge. I replied, saying that the information on the duets is presented in a neutral fashion and should not be harmful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if they don't want to communicate with you then there is little you can do other than follow our project standards. Chillum 16:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Consider Unblocking Me

Hi, Chillum. I was perma-blocked in 2012 without warning or discussion on a false charge of sockpuppetry. I have never socked Wikipedia. After that WP:AN/ANI sort of "landed" on me. I've been intensely hounded by some of its regulars. I've come to realize that it doesn't really avail me anything to make my unblocking case as an introduction on an administrator's page, because most take an "I don't waant to get involved" position. If you'll consider it, you might unblock my talkpage. Do not believe anything you read about me without allowing me to defend the charge. Colton Cosmic. (Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colton_Cosmic (I dispute that I was "banned by the community," I was banned by a WP:AN/ANI mobbing conducted by a a couple of my long-term hounders, and that didn't even give a reason, if you look at it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.71.230.43 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If your talk page access has been removed the you can request an unblock or a block review at WP:UTRS. Please do not use other IPs or accounts to edit Wikipedia in the meantime. Chillum 16:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

UTRS and Arbcom (BASC) are silent when I send them appeal emails. There is no genuine unblock path open to me, unless a single administrator decides it is the right thing to do. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2015‎ 2001:41d0:1:d1b0::1 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 August

I am willing to unlock your talk page access on the condition that it is only to be used by you while logged into your original Colton Cosmic account and that it is only used to make a request to be unblocked. I will watch the page and will repost whatever request you make at the administrative noticeboard. The community can decide from there, give the past I would not hold out hope. Please consider the advice given at the standard offer. If this is agreeable let me know and I will do it. Chillum 02:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This user has been banned from UTRS as well. It's BASC or nothing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

While BASC is an option the community always has the last say(unless I am missing something). I highly doubt in this case the community will change its mind I am willing to present their case to the community if only to clarify things. Chillum 02:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Been done: [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Fee free to do whatever you want, but BASC has repeatedly declined this guy's appeal, and UTRS has a very short banlist... to land there, it means that a lot of volunteer time was wasted already. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the info. Cosmic, you just had a review. I suggest you wait a year then try again. Chillum 04:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're around...

...could you repeat your actions on this set of edits? Many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not to worry – already sorted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian Attempt at Censorship

Hey Chillum, check this out. I checked the article in question, left a note in talk and went on to remove the more detailed manufacturing methods for the simple reason they were not sourced and secondly I believe describing illegal drug manufacture in depth is counter to best policy? Anyways, I seek your input in what could be a contentious issue, regards.Twobells^t@lk 11:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I would say this is a content dispute. Such things are not decided by admins or the Russian government. As an editor I would say that we are not a how-to guide. That being said what I am reading is far closer to a description of what the product is rather than a guide to making it. I doubt anyone seeking to manufacture this would find that article sufficient to get started.

I think that this is something to be settled on the talk page by editors. I will also point out that the Russian government is a bit irrational right now and has been censoring things left and right without much sense[2]. WP:NOTHOWTO is relevant. I would suggest reworking the section so as to describe what it is without describing the steps that result in what it ends up being. Chillum 15:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis

This guy just goes on. Now he switched IP and he is now convincing the other user to just ignore sources (diff). This is the IP he is using now, 82.214.103.10 and he was already active at Tesla discussions. Se his first edit with that IP where he announces he will be using proxy. How to deal with him? FkpCascais (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In this case a prior edit from the IP admitted they were Asdisis. Have posted a diff showing that to Bbb23s talk page given that he handled the prior sock blocks. A good tip is when reverting a blocked or banned user to put in the edit summary: "3RR exempt per WP:NOT3RR#EX3". Only use this when you have good evidence it is indeed a blocked or banned user. Any admin worth their salt should not block you for edit warring before considering your evidence. Chillum 16:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice. I will avoid reverting or edit-warring as I did yesterday, its much better to do as you did, to expose him to the blocking admin. If they edit articles, then yes, besides reporting I will also revert using the edit-summary with the link to the policy as you suggested. In the meantime at the discussion, I provided 3 more sources, its 11 already, so Asdisis advice to the other editor to ignore my sources and just go ahead with the edit is a great exemple of how Asdisis behaves and how he doesn't deserve to be unblocked. Many thanks! FkpCascais (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

But the guy is becoming a real legend here on wp in matter of obsessiveness and desperation. FkpCascais (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is a very normal run of the mill puppet. This person is easy to recognize and untalented at sock puppetry. I have seen far more legendary sock puppets. As for obsessiveness and desperation, Wikipedia is like rotten meat to flies for people like that. This is amateur hour. Chillum 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Notice how Asdisis shows up right when Michael gets blocked? If they are not the same person they are clearly coordinating with each other. Chillum 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I suspected that from the very beginning but didn't knew how to gather evidence. But you noticed well that, it was precisely the timing when Michael account got blocked that Asdisis returned editing as IP. FkpCascais (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Like I said this guy is not very good at sock puppeting. The fact that the next one always appears after the prior one is blocked is a pretty dead give away. I am trying to encourage an uninvolved admin to watch the page at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion, we will see if any can help. Chillum 19:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Its great that you called the attention of the community with that report, and certainly much better to be you than me because you are a sysop and because I am Serbian so then, if I complain, they always cry out loud how they are victims of Serbian nationalism and blabla. I have been editing primarily football for many years now, but also quite a lot of hot topics regarding the former Yugoslavia region. Editing in this area is really challenging cause, besides a few established editors, the rest are just nationalistic warriors defending the the honor and glory of their homeland -_- ... Some become more evident, others act more in disguise, but basically every article within the scope of more than one nationality ends up sooner of later being a battleground. Often it is really just about some silly insignificant stuff, however, sometimes for someone from outside it may seem like something insignificant but that little thing may be used later in another article where becomes very significant. I smell it immediately, and so I did with Asdisis. What was particularly annoying with him was his way of approaching. Like saying over and over that he is not editing the article neither making an edit-request... so what are you ding then discussing for months lol? Then so much politeness but so fake... They really got on my nerves. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Random stuff

@Anythingyouwant: Rather than shoe-horn this discussion on Drmies talk page I figure we can talk here? Chillum 20:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

---

• Copied from User talk:Drmies

In matters like Kww's, ordinary editors do not get a !vote much less a vote. Even if the results would be exactly the same as ArbCom's (which is very doubtful), I think most editors would have a lot more confidence if these decisions were made in each case by a randomly-selected jury-type body.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

May I ask you why you think a random number generator will somehow represent the community better than the community chosen arbcom? Seems to me that would involve the community less, and chance more. Would it really serve the community to stop the community from deciding who does these things and just choosing random? I really am trying to understand your reasoning. Chillum 19:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(feel free to respond on my talk page if you prefer) Chillum 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about a random number generator.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Okay fair enough. How would we randomly select a jury type body? Dice? Chillum 20:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct it

There is something wrong, Mr. Stradivarius didn't vote oppose. He was replying to my comment. But there is a number before his comment which increases the oppose vote.--Aero Slicer 15:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.