Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:58, 4 September 2013

Talk to me

• Email me, yeah? --Dave 19:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

On retiring

I'm sorry you feel that way - it certainly wasn't my intent to make you retire. Although I suspect Gaba_p is the root cause of many of the issues it takes two to edit-war etc. I also thought a topic ban was the least offensive action because as things were going you were both heading for a block or a trip to arbcom, which would have been a lot of hassle and likely led to a similar result. A topic ban on the other hand would still allow you to edit wikipedia. If you ever want to return let me know, using an unlogged in IP if need be, and I'll remove the wikibreak enforcer. Dpmuk (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• WCM, I concur with Dpmuk on this. Don't become a fanatic, as I suspect that GP has become over the years, there is no need to feed off his energy and letting him feed off yours. All it takes is just another spark and the EW would go kaboom! Just take a break like I told you to and come back when you are more clearer in the mind and energised in the body, yeah? --Dave 20:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• • You know more about the Falklands that any other editor in Misplaced Pages. Best wishes to you and if you wish, rest and come back. Mugginsx (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Farewell. Please do return when you feel better.--MarshalN20 | 18:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban: Falkland Islands

Hello. This is to inform you that, by community consensus, Gaba p (talk · contribs) and you are both indefinitely topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from everything related to the Falkland Islands.

This sanction can be appealed to the community at WP:AN, or to the Arbitration Committee. Experience shows that the chances of any appeal are greatly increased if the appellant can show a lengthy period of compliance with the ban and of conflict-free editing in other topic areas.  Sandstein  17:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban for subjects concerning the sovereignty dispute of the Falkland Islands plus an interaction ban (between Gaba and Wee) would have been sufficient. To ban WCM from all Falkland Islands topics is excessive.--MarshalN20 | 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MarshalN20. Where is the provocation for this additional punishment? I do not see any further editing by either editor. Am I missing something? Mugginsx (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Replying on behalf of WCM (as he is retired and contactable by email only): "The opposing camp's seriously skewed Argie nationalistic view." Out. --Dave 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dpmuk’s flawed ban proposal is based on the taken-out-of-the-blue presumption that there is a need for some new consensus (“...they have made discussion to reach a consensus almost impossible ...”, “...it's impossible to reach a consensus on these issues while these two editors are involved and so propose a topic ban ...”) aimed at altering the existing stable, long-time consensus resulting from extensive past discussions involving a great number of editors – a consensus that has provided for reasonably NPOV Falklands related articles. The idea of removing participants in order to pave the way towards infringing this existing neutrality is rather unfortunate indeed. Apcbg (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As a comment as from an administrator's perspective (but without my admin hat on, if you get the drift), it's pretty hard to enforce highly specific topic bans, and they're open to gaming (not that I'm suggesting that WCM would do this), and especially gaming by other editors targeting the topic banned editor. As an example, if WCM was to be topic banned from 'subjects concerning the sovereignty dispute of the Falkland Islands', would he be violating this by working on the RAF Mount Pleasant or ARA Hércules (B-52) articles? Neither has a direct connection to the sovereignty dispute of the Falkland Islands, but both the base and the ship are highly relevant to any potential military confrontation involving the Falklands' sovereignty and the day-to-day balance of military power in the region. Similarly, if he was to work on articles on the Falklands' economy he could be accused of somehow biasing these to support the POV that the islanders are better off under British sovereignty that they would be under Argentine, and so on. Such accusations are sadly common in regards to such topic bans where nationalism is a factor in the underlying dispute (for instance, the endless drama among some of the editors who work on articles concerning Eastern Europe or the Israeli-Palestinian dispute). I certainly hope that WCM returns to editing, and I'd note that getting topic bans lifted is pretty easy - all you need to do is stick to the ban, edit productively in other areas for a few months, and then ask for it to be lifted while making a commitment to avoid problematic behaviour (for instance, a voluntary 0 or 1 revert rule). Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Another route to having topic bans eventually lifted is to agree to have a mentor for a period, and I'd be pleased to perform such a role if you're ever interested. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, thank you for the response. Given the history of the dispute between Gaba and WCM, I still consider a specific topic ban on sovereignty dispute matters would have been enough to quell the dispute.

As can be seen in the Falkland Islands article (section on Sovereignty Dispute) and my sandbox (see User:MarshalN20/sandbox), it is easier to work with editors on indirect topics to reach a consensus.

Moreover, WCM's edit history shows that he is primarily interested in topics about the Falkland Islands. That's his area of expertise, his intellectual cradle, and cutting him from that essentially leaves him at nothing (and leaves Misplaced Pages at a loss from an editor who can expand articles on the Falkland Islands).

That being said, I understand your point about the tricky nature of topic bans. I think mentorship works better than bans in cases such as this one.

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D pretty much hit the nail on the head as to the reason I asked for a complete topic ban, and to be honest I don't think it's likely that WCM actions in indirectly related topics that would be the problem, rather it would be other editors reaction to them. As has also been pointed out topic bans don't have to last for ever and I was very much looking at this as a way of calming things down.

As to Apcbg's comments I have two points to make. Firstly, if their was previous consensus then people would have been best served pointing to the discussion where that consensus was formed, as this would carry significant weight in any discussion, yet I can not remember seeing any such link. Secondly, a version being stable carries some, but not a lot of, weight in my opinion as there have been some pretty atrocious articles out there (including outright hoaxes) that have been stable for a long time and which have eventually been tidied up either due to more information or just more editors noticing the article. Of course there's also the point that consensus can change. For all these reasons, unless a discussion was recent, it is often desirable to form a new consensus if someone challenges something although of course it's also allowable to point to an old consensus and use that as a basis for forming a new consensus. If the old consensus is strong enough it may even be accepted as is. Dpmuk (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• FYI, WCM is not coming back here after this, he has had it with Gaba & his gang of meatpuppets constantly tag-teaming and stalking him on WP. In his own words: "SysOp Dpmuk has done me in without even consulting the other Admins before making a unilateral decision to proceed with the TBan. Also, he is extremely fed-up by the ludicrious bureaucracy here and would like remind the Admins to take a closer look at the way that Gaba & his gang has continually muddied the water whenever issues between them pops up on AN/ANI. Note that he has left the building, password scrambled. And thanks for all the fish! (PS: Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger here.) --Dave 06:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's unfair. It was hardly a unilateral decision. It was discussed and agreed upon at AN as WCM well knows as he commented there. I'll also note that I was not the one that closed that discussion or concluded that there was consensus for a topic ban - that would have been inappropriate as I started the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Whoever it was, it was a lousy call and the real victim has left, for good this time. Just my 2 cents here. --Dave 06:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Response

Posting as an IP as I have no intention of returning. First of all, I'd like to thank all of those who've written to me expressing their disquiet at this ruling.

Nick-D is most astute in recognising that nationalism was and is at the root of this. Argentine nationalism. You have just had two editors stating at WP:AN that their motivation is to make the articles more Pro-Argentine to counter what they see as a Pro-British bias. From the POV of any nationalist bigot from Argentina any reasonable neutral text is going to be Pro-British. And as Apcbg has observed the text of the article having been established by consensus over a long period does indeed represent a NPOV. Dpmuk, there is no way an article that prominent could ever have been maintained a non-neutral statement, so your argument in that respect is not sustainable.

Dpmuk you stated above that this was not your fault and it was a community decision. In a matter of days a few admins who did not look at the case closely made a decision solely based on what you posted. You loaded the gun, pointed it in the right direction; that someone else pulled the trigger does not absolve you of responsibility. Looking at what you posted there, you were basically saying we were equally bad yet above you acknowledge that Gaba p was at the root of it all; it was decidely one sided. Why didn't you say so, if you could see it?

I hold nothing against you personally but I believe you made a very flawed decision with the best of intentions. Spotting a pattern of bullying and stalking is not easy from a few snapshots and whilst it might have seemed like just bickering to you, after a year of constant hounding it is very different being on the receiving end. Nick-D's comments were right on the money, maybe I'd got caught up in it. But I'd been left to cope with constant abuse and stalking for a year. Any and all avenues I pursued for help came to naught.

So why am I leaving.

I am not leaving because I'm angry at this ruling, though to be honest I do find it a massive slap in the face. Ultimately, I am leaving simply because I have ceased to enjoy editing wikipedia. Honestly, I've lost any and all passion I once had for editing, even if I were to come back I no longer have the motivation to contribute. Its simply gone.

As regards User:Gaba p, I have nothing but pity for an individual so sad, pathetic and full of hate that they would pursue a campaign of harassment for over a year because of some imagined slight. I don't reciprocate as basically life is too short to waste on trivia.

Anyway, someone please wipe this talk page for me please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.34.162 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• WCM, rest assure that I'll keep the page this way until 31st May, after which it would be wiped as you've requested. Best and cheers. --Dave 15:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple of of comments. I am aware that the topic ban was largely my doing and have never tried claiming otherwise. What I objected to was the statement that it was "unilateral". Do I think what I did was flawed? Yes, I do. I also feel I did not have a choice. I feel that the way wikipedia deals with content disputes is deeply flawed and feel it is the reason that we lose some editors - as it seems to be the case with you. In this case consensus building has obviously failed but the community believes so strongly in it that there is no alternative - even mediation which I suggested requires the parties to agree to it. Yours and Gaba_p's actions were making it difficult for anyone else to become involved in the article and were effectively resulting in a slow motion edit war. Was a topic ban the right tool, no. Was it, unfortunately, the best tool available, yes I think it was. I would add that neither of you helped yourself by simply carrying on before and not trying something different such as mediation despite multiple warnings from me about where things were heading. If either of you had stopped at that point any ban would have been unlikely to involve you.

Similarly if you felt that strongly that you were being bullied you'd probably have been best coming up with a very good case and taking it to ANI (which again is broken but the best available, in no small part because of how often nothing is done due to no-one commenting etc.).

"maybe I'd got caught up in it". Yes I think you had and this is no small part of why I proposed a topic ban rather than anything more substantial, to give all editors a chance to calm down. That said your statement that "From the POV of any nationalist bigot from Argentina any reasonable neutral text is going to be Pro-British." I think shows what caused a large amount of the problem here. I bet if you switch the two countries around you're pretty much get what Gaba_p thinks. I think a lot of this was caused by you each failing to realise this was the other person's view and not accounting for that fact (which is different to agreeing with it).

As I say, my gut feeling is that Gaba_p is more likely the root cause. However I have no proof of this, and I note you never offered any, so I couldn't act on it. Admins are only volunteers to and you'll be lucky indeed to find one that would have waded through all the back story on this - making your case succinctly with diffs etc may well have helped my confirm where the bigger problem was but this never happened. I would, rightly, get pilloried if I acted on a gut feeling.

I'm sorry things have ended the way they did. I can understand your decision and will chalk it up to another case of wikipedia being broken as I don't know how I could have acted differently within wikipedia's broken rules. Similar reasons is why my editing has become less of late. Dpmuk (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dpmuk, you state that I haven't provided evidence in the form of diffs. See for example. I have repeatedly at WP:ANI but as I and others have commented, Gaba p deployed distraction tactics including the use of misleading diffs. I even demonstrated how he was abusing diffs and it was ignored. Previously Gaba p was blocked for disruption and incivility, he has been warned enough times to quit or face further blocks - well those never materialised and he just got bolder and bolder. Whilst I was the focus it seemed no one gave a shit as the disruption was focused.

And as regards my comment on nationalism. Look at the record in the history of Talk:Falkland Islands, where I was simultaneously lambasted for being pro-British and pro-Argentine. I am more than capable of recognising that other people have differing viewpoints but that is very different from the way Gaba p edited. He sought to remove any reference to a British viewpoint to be replaced by an exclusively Argentine one. Yes it was a large part of the problem but you've totally misunderstood the role it played; frankly my POV doesn't cross over into my editing and I can work with editors whose views differ. Look at the history of my work with User:Jor70 and User:DagosNavy, look at who it was who built bridges between British and Argentine editors on Falklands topics.

I do not agree that a topic ban on me was warranted, Gaba p has received numerous warnings for his editing behaviour, it was the fact they were never acted upon that led to this situation. You can blame the rules if you like but its more a case of people failing to act within the rules. Its illuminating to note that when he was blocked peace broke out immediately. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is right. We got to this point largely because Gaba insisted on pushing bias on the article and when somebody chose to do something about it, they went for the Misplaced Pages-standard idea that the disrupted are as responsible for disruption as the disruptive.

I find it interesting that Dpmuk says f either of you had stopped at that point any ban would have been unlikely to involve you. It is not clear to me what point this is supposed to be, but I would point out that by the time the topic ban was made, Curry Monster had stopped. He was observing a two-week-old moratorium agreed between himself and Gaba. Gaba reneged on the deal within 48 hours, and without Curry Monster to stonewall, was stonewalling everyone else who disagreed with him. And I believe this was pointed out at the AN discussion.

If Curry Monster had been topic banned and Gaba not, we would currently be in exactly the same place as we were beforehand. Consensus would have been just as impossible to attain. Had Gaba been topic banned and Curry Monster not, we would currently be in the position we are in now, in which peace and cooperative editing have broken out. Difference with both topic banned is that we lose Curry Monster's extensive knowledge and experience in this area, resulting in worse coverage of the topic overall.

It is and always has been clear that any topic ban on Curry Monster damages - is currently actively damaging - Misplaced Pages's coverage of Falklands topics. There is no preventative reason to exclude Curry Monster from the topic and there is no benefit to the encylopædia from doing so. This was a very bad decision. Kahastok talk 17:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a great pity that you have been banned from discussin the Falklands on the apparent say-so of Argentine nationalists intent on editing EN Wiki to fit their own pre-conceived notions of what 'neutrality' is, whilst ES Wiki is left a ghost-yard of one-sided articles (the ES article on the sinking of the Belgrano doesn't even mention Admiral Molina Pico and Hector Bonzo's statements that the sinking was justified and an act of war, and that this was also the position of the Argentine Navy). FOARP (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Dave 16:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by Kahastok

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kahastok is disrupting a GA attempt) Martinvl (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)