User talk:Jbhunley/Archives/2018/April

FPaS Case and Swarm

Would you be open to working with me on including Swarm in your case? The two events are related and I would like Arbcom to look at them both at the same time. I did not want to add to your case without your permission though. --Tarage (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: I would prefer not to split the focus of the case right now. It focuses on a single act by a single person. I am only passingly familiar with what happened with your block but it looked like examining it would be messy and take the focus off of the issue I want examined. If you want to make a statement about your views on the situation and bring up your block that would be fine. If you plan to lay out evidence against Swarm and discuss his behavior I would very much prefer you do that in a separate case. That way both matters can get an independent hearing on their merits without one derailing discussion about the other. If ArbCom accepts that both complaints should result in a case I have no objection if they choose to join them at that point. Thank you for asking beforehand. I appreciate that very much. Jbh ^Talk 19:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry it's come to this, but Swarm forced my hand before even letting me post on the existing arbcom case so... [1] --Tarage (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: Why would you copy the same material into both cases! It is not like it will be considered twice as valid. I mean, damn, the arbs do not forget stuff just because it is under a different section header. My thought is that you displayed to the committee the same WP:TE pattern you were accused of. I know that is what I read into double posting material. Why not address the material relating to FPaS in the first case; put a 'see case below' note in; and discuss the issue with your block in the second case? That way you stay within the word limits of both cases and do not spread the commentary over both cases??!! Jbh ^Talk 11:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will also give you a bit of advice about framing grievances. If you have an issue with someone's actions frame the matter as what they did wrong, not as why you were right. Set out the expected norms of behavior and show how they were breached. In this case, if I were you, I would be addressing the needling/mocking unblock conditions, how other editors found that to be poor behavior, the long exchanges on the unblocking admin's page etc. Going into why you were right just sounds defensive. Addressing why they were wrong is what you need to get across.

Showing awareness of why your behavior could be seen as not OK is also good. Always own your part in a dispute directly and show you recognize how you could have done things better. If, once you do that you think the other party was way out of line you can address their behavior. In this kind of process you can choose either to defend your behavior or 'attack' the other party's behavior. Doing both seldom leads to a satisfactory result.

Oh, and use paragraphs! It is better to break stuff up into visually digestible chunks. Jbh ^Talk 12:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I was rushed to put it all together due to Swarm's filing but I will go over it later to condense and fix it. --Tarage (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Length

Hi, Jbhunley. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias: I requested permission to exceed 500 words on the talk page here. I will copy the diff into my statement so it does not add to the count. I have also removed the diff quotes and prefatory statement. Jbh ^Talk 21:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The notification is purely to advise as not everyone is aware of the specifics for statements at the requests page. If you've requested an extension then once we've heard back I can tweak the template with the new limit. Amortias (T)(C) 21:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do tend to be wordy… Jbh ^Talk 21:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias: I was able to get my initial statement down to ~500 words. It is a rewrite since editing it would have left a mess. If the arbs object to a full rewrite I have no objection if my section is reverted to the permalinked (previous version) at the top, which is how it stood before the rewrite. Jbh ^Talk 05:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This is for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 05:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu: thank you very much! Jbh ^Talk 14:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Three Hundred Laz Martyrs, Jbhunley.

Unfortunately Primefac has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Copyvio removed. Might be worth looking at again.

To reply, leave a comment on Primefac's talk page.

Primefac (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Thanks. I removed the image too since it is a copyvio from the same site. Considering the bulk of the article was a copy/paste I figured the intro might be as well. I agree though that the topic is one we should have an article on. If you are comfortable with it as is, I am as well so I have re-reviewed it. Jbh ^Talk 15:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Principled stand

Regarding this edit: note a "principled stand" is actually based on ethics: what is deemed right by a set of rules or principles. Going beyond the dictionary meaning, it's often used to describe a stance that doesn't just do what is expedient but is based on specific guiding rules. Thus I wouldn't say someone making a principled stand does not have facts or ethics on their side. isaacl (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: you are, of course, correct about the denotative meaning of the term. In that edit I was responding to a common, dismissive rhetorical use. Often, as in this case, when someone says one is taking a "principled stand" what is being implied is the 'wrong' under discussion has no practical or concrete form — that one must reach into the abstract realm of ethics/principles/etc to give the harm form ie no direct harm was done to a person or thing only to some abstract idea of right. The implication being the one making the "principled stand" is making a matter of little consequence into a big issue, not because of actual harm but rather abstract or theoretical harm. The intent being to dismiss the complaint as being ephemeral and therefore either unworthy of consideration or even an intentional abuse of process.

I read " …raising a stink over an admittedly insignificant issue because you think there are Important Principles at stake… " as a dismissive (even contemptuous) rhetorical device. My response was to point out that there were concrete issues to address. While there are indeed important principles which should be addressed they act as a buttress not a foundation for the complaint. O.r. was basically saying that the facts of the case are so minor that they are merely an excuse or a vehicle rather than actual problems which must be addressed.

I hope that made some sense about where I was coming from in that quote. Cheers! Jbh ^Talk 19:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC) (@Opabinia regalis:. Courtesy ping only. — Jbh ^Talk)[reply]

Without commenting on what was intended by the other person's statement, I don't agree with what you believe the connotations of "principled stand" are, without the uppercase letters. In itself, there is no conclusion being drawn regarding the practical impact of the stand. Of course, the context surrounding the use of the phrase can add meaning. Accordingly my suggestion is that it would be helpful to reword your statement to clarify the greater context from which you are drawing to make your conclusion; otherwise, it's jarring to read a sentence that says a "principled stand" is the opposite of its actual definition. All the same, I appreciate your clarifications on the matter. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exchange at the case request is essentially a conversation between me and O.r. and I am sure that the two of us understood the subtext each intended. I understand how the rhetoric could be jarring but I do not think it would be productive to re-open that particular matter simply to clarify it for third parties. I do appreciate your observations and I will try to be clearer in my writing if it comes up again. Jbh ^Talk 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree at this point it's kind of late to change anything. For future, it may be helpful to take note that a lot of the time, the real audience for these sorts of discussions are those who are following along, whose views of your arguments will be affected by the straightforward meaning of your logic, rather than the person who you are addressing. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. isaacl (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eventualism

I have seen over the years that eventualism is a good outlook on Wikipedia. If somebody needs to lose their ops, sooner or later they will. It is enough to bring a problem into the spotlight. Do not despair for lack of immediate sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: Thank you for the kind words. I figure you are right. My frustration arises mostly from the collective attitude at ArbCom that what happened was somehow OK. I see the ad-hoc justifications as moral cowardice. Everything about my background makes me cringe when I see people who have sought authority use motivated reasoning, deliberate incomprehension, etc. to justify not acting. A simple "What you did was wrong. Do not do it again." would have left me if not satisfied at least convinced ArbCom cared about such misbehavior. I can accept and understand other people differing in opinion about the magnitude and severity of the case but I simply can neither understand not respect condoning the fact of it. Oh well. It's done and I have learned something — not something I wanted to learn but all lessons are valuable. Jbh ^Talk 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Low blow?

Hi Jbhunley. It seems I must apologize for my late use of the ^[FBDB] template at User talk:Hillbillyholiday. I can understand that you, like any collegiate editor, would want to remove something that might be easily misconstrued as a real personal attack. I’m not in the habit of grave-dancing (or in this case what might even appear to be more akin to crematorium plot dancing),however, and your edit summary seemed to suggest that you thought I was actually being serious. I had hoped that the context of the my comments, in the recent AN/I discussion about HBH, or even my other inputs at his Talk page (over the past 5+ years), might have helped to avoid such a scenario. But I’m still struggling a bit with your "*and* a BLP violation to boot" and I’d appreciate if you could enlighten me there. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: I acknowledge I may have misconstrued banter for attack. It did look like one to me though. What I saw, and why I saw it as BLP issue, was a newspaper article - in a paper the user had an adversarial relationship with to boot - which discussed (I assumed HH's from context) serious drunk driving charges and says "they got off lightly". Even if I am incorrect in my thought that the article subject is HH, the article is a BLP violation against whomever the subject is. It discusses drunk driving charges of a named person (BLPCRIME), it goes on to say they got off lightly (contentious BLP claim) and finally it is a Daily Mail tabloid piece.

My 'low blow' comment in the edit summary was snarkey and I apologize for that. The BLP part though (unless I am being really clueless, which is always possible) still looks like an issue to me regardless of intent. Jbh ^Talk 16:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me User:Jbhunley, the subject of that DM article is someone called Anthony McPartlin. I guess, as a UK TV "celebrity", from your safe distance over in The Land of the Free(?), you will probably and luckily never have heard of him. But that is quite an astonishing mistake. I'm also pretty sure that McPartlin has never knowingly edited Wikipedia (but one never knows, with all these IP socks about). Additionally, even though, as you probably know, the Daily Mail is currently PROHIBITED, I'm pretty sure that's just for article mainspace and that links are still permitted for the purposes of "discussion", even if they might appear to contain a "contentious BLP claim"? {... not that there was very much discussion in this case, of course , haha). I'm so incensed I feel I might just have to write to complain to Paul Dacre himself. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I misread the whole thing! Yes, I do know that there is more leeway outside of project space but, in my opinion, gratuitous links to bad acts is something to be avoided. Based on what you have said here I won't revert it if you want to put it back. Please do though be careful of how things may read to the clueless, especially in tense situations.

Yep, American… I did, however spend the better part of a year living up in Yorkshire back in the mid-90's — probably the most pleasant place I have ever lived. Jbh ^Talk 17:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Eh oop, Hunlers, me old rascal". So I may risk hilly restoration, at the risk of looking a bit tacky. But I take it as a compliment of the highest order that my ruthless link pun sarcasm fest could blend so seamlessly, in your mind, into a perceived reality. Anyone who has truly relished God's Own County, of course, can't be too bad. As a fitting penance, I feel you should be able to enjoy some wonderful John Shuttleworth with his caustic and incisive analysis of my life at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. yes, I've lived in some right dives myself, but I prefer to keep it hidden... [reply]

Formatting

I think you accidentally styled Mr rnddude's comment in fixed-width. Bright☀ 13:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrightR: Thank you. Fixed. Jbh ^Talk 13:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Barawa

Editor blocked [2] as SOCK of Loliban.

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

I'm trying to reason with the user d and want to talk to him on the talk page but all he does is revert without discussing with or with the other users. So cam you please check him out for me? His name is Crenelator and I would very much appreciate your help sir. Logoat (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Logoat: Considering you started with a manifestly untrue statement — "You cannot use sources that aren't written in English on a English speaking Wiki forum which is unacceptable. " (There is no requirement for sources to be in English) — I can see why it would be unlikely for Crenelator to respond. I suggest that you open a new thread on the article talk page which says what your concerns are with the content of the edit. If you think the source is not appropriate, first read Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, then discuss why you think the source is not reliable.

I have warned you both about edit warring so there really should not be further reversions without discussion on the talk page. If you make further changes I strongly suggest that both of you explain why you think something should be added/removed/changed. Focus on individual elements of information rather than wholesale reversion.

Please read over Wikipedia's basic content policies –– Requirement to write from a neutral point of view; All content must be verifiable by a reliable source; The policy againstoriginal research; and if you write about living people, the policy on biographies of living persons. You may also like to look over this brief tutorial on editing talk pages.

Also, I have pinged @Crenelator: since this advice applies to them as well.

(Please follow the blue links. These terms have a specific meaning on Wikipedia and the links provide more details.) Jbh ^Talk 17:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sir, I don't want an edit war. I just want the user to have a proper dialogue with me and he keeps ignoring me and other users and just reverts. Literally check the sources I kept protecting and also added. I'm actually being the honest one here but he is just trolling and not talking to me. So I need your help to tell him to at least talk to me before reverting. That's all I need from you, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user Logoat

I gave them the same warning about edit warring as I did to you so there is no excuse for them not replying to a polite message on the article talk page. If they continue to simply revert without discussion after you have explained your changes/concerns on the talk page you can bring the matter up for administrative (I am not an admin) attention at the edit warring noticeboard or, because communication is required, the Incidents noticeboard. If you bring this issue to a noticeboard be brief and concise in describing the problem and make user to provide diffs which illustrate the issue.

I also notice that another editor has challenged some of the same material at User talk:Crenelator#Battle of Barawa. They really should have done that on the article talk page to keep discussion about the article with the article but you may want to follow that discussion as well. Jbh ^Talk 18:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Username mention

Greetings, I received a username mention directing to this page and decided to see what's up. I apologize you were dragged into this matter, but things should be settled now. If you wish, you can follow-up on the discussion at the article talk page and decide for yourself. Best regards, Crenelator (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]