User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty archives

Modern clean archives

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

To suppress the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; } to your personal CSS.

To suppress site notices add #siteNotice { display:none; } to your personal CSS.

To suppress the MediaViewer follow these instructions

Use {{Reflist|30em}} instead of {{Reflist|2}}

Re: Ad hominem

Sorry to post on your talk page on a topic already open on both Catflap's and my own, but while you're at it could you also request that he strike from this comment the portion "In the course of events ... and Czech"? After you telling both of us to focus on article content and not other users, he has continued his prior accusation of "xenophobic racism" against Germans because I said his English on another talk page was so poor I couldn't understand him. I will admit that I have not been on my best behaviour in the last few weeks of this dispute, but constant assumptions of bad faith and bringing up unrelated disputes like this certainly have not been helping. The closest I have ever come to repeatedly accusing him of racism/xenophobia was when I, after a long hard day of tour-guiding ISO representatives around Iwate's tsunami-devastated coastal region, accused him of belittling/attacking one of Iwate Prefecture's great heroes on the anniversary of 3/11. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in what occurred in the past between you two, only in what is happening now in the thread I am involved in. I will deal with incidents I see as and when I see them, and will do so fairly and equally. I am asking both of you to stop sniping at each other, and that includes on my talkpage.

I understand the frustrations of editing on Wikipedia and getting into disputes with another editor. I know exactly how you feel. My advice is to drop it completely. Let me deal with any incidents, and you stay out of it. If you get particularly enraged, then stop editing articles where the other editor is involved. There is much to do, and millions of articles to work on. Sucking in other editors via RfC on minor editing details is not good for you, the articles, Wikipedia, or the other editors. You could be putting your time and effort to good and enjoyable use elsewhere. Put it all into context and look at these backlogs. There are articles that have been tagged with problems since 2006. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I noted your comment on Catflap08's talk page, and left a follow-up note agreeing with it, but also indicating that I think Catflap08 might not be the most active day-to-day editor around here and that I hoped you would ensure that he has in fact edited before issuing a warning. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:John Carter: Catflap and I were both asked to strike our ad hominem remarks. My immediate response was to strike my ad hominem remark, and I didn't post a direct reply to SilkTork until some time later. Catflap's response was to indicate that he had read SilkTork's request, but to request that I also go back and strike the word "jerk" from an ANI thread that was archived weeks ago. A little under an hour later he posted another comment on the Kenji talk page, which included another ad hominem remark about me, which is the subject of my current request on this thread.

@SilkTork: I understand, and I will try to do that next time I feel the urge to say something I shouldn't. But you are aware that the comment in question was posted yesterday and you were pinged in it, right? I'm not asking for his earlier comments to be stricken. I only gave you the background for clarity.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The content discussion appears to be resolved so I have removed the RfC tag. I will keep the talkpage on my watchlist for a little while longer, and will step in if it appears that incivility is continuing. The aim being to prevent ongoing incivility rather than to punish for past incivility. OK? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Any chance you could do the same for Talk:Daisaku Ikeda? I've been putting up with a fair bit over there too. Apparently Japanese religious figures are too far outside my normal area of editing, even though I've been editing the area since 2005, that it counts as WP:HARASSMENT to even post on that page. I'm sure John Carter and Catflap feel the opposite way, but I doubt anyone would claim more eyes on the problem is a bad thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Catflap's still at it

He's now admitted that he's more interested in holding grudges and fighting with me than in behaving constructively. As soon as someone told me to strike my ad hominem remarks I complied, but he has only stepped up his accusations of "racism" and "xenophobia". Even John Carter is now telling him he's going too far. He also appears to be keeping a "list" of my supposed attacks against him, even though everyone agrees that it was a hypothetical analogy of Kenji to a hypothetical non-homophobe who happened to be associated with the Westborough Baptist Church for a few months, and not an attack on his sexuality, of which I neither know nor care anything. Could you please tell him to drop it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Crap. Sorry. Just noticed that you already did so before I asked. I need a new phone. No harm no foul. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

But this edit summary seems to be a continuation of personal insults, which might itself be worthy of concern. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal insults? Can you actually read the comment to which I was responding and tell me how it would have been anything approaching a "personal insult" to say "lie"? I anticipated some push-back on the word "lie" and so I used the lighter word "fabrication", but could someone please tell me how Catflap08 has continued to get away with that kind of behaviour? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I can. Hijiri, I realize that you seem to have a remarkably and sometimes rather unsupportably high opinion of yourself and your opinions, and you almost instantly make some sort of snarky and offensive remark whenever anyone disagrees with you, or try to engage in misdirection, as per your last clause above, but it is I think just as reasonable a concern how it is that you have continued to get away with your own behaviour. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

JC, what are you talking about? Where have I in either my above post or the diff you linked to indicated that I have a high opinion of either myself or my opinions? I didn't mention my opinions anywhere. I said that Catflap was making up offenses I had supposedly committed against him, something you can't possibly deny given the evidence. Seriously, look at my talk page history: I have only once deleted a message from Catflap, and that had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the Miyazawa Kenji article. You are now doing exactly what you did on the initial ANI thread, pointing to ridiculous red herrings and making completely bogus accusations that I have no feasible way to counter since I can't even figure out what you are talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I did say that I would keep an eye on it and deal with it, and that what I did not want is either of you sniping at each other on my talkpage. Indeed, I don't want you sniping at each other anywhere on Wikipedia. The rest of us don't need it. We understand you are in a personal conflict, but you have the option not to escalate it, and not to drag the rest of us into it. As far as I am aware, and I'm not interested in wasting my volunteer time researching into your petty personal squabble to see the history of it, this issue is 50/50. You can either stop it yourself, or you can be forced into stopping it by serving a time out for incivility. If I come upon any more of your incivility toward Catflap08 I will start issuing formal warnings leading up to a block. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have taken the opportunity to forward to you an e-mail with any material which might specifically give the identification of the person who sent it to me omitted or paraphrased, which I think might be useful and informative. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:SilkTork: Hijiri88 here. Logged out and posting from a shifting IP for obvious reasons. If the email you were forwarded looked anything like this, it means User:John Carter has joined the long list of users who has received email contact from my long-term stalker. This banned user has been emailing everyone he sees getting in conflicts with me over the past two years, giving them a list of all my past "abuses". That John Carter would call such an email "useful and informative" is disturbing. That John Carter's email address does not appear to be public means the banned user has a currently active sock account with email access. If you have any suspicion about this at all I urge you to contact User:Cuchullain or User:Yunshui, both of whom are highly experienced in this matter. 182.249.9.56 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I might be wrong in the above guess, hence the capitalized "IF" in my edit summary. If I am wrong and it's just an innocent email from an uninvolved party related to this problem, I apologize to John Carter for my incorrect assumption. I will trust SilkTork's judgement on this matter. But I would ask not to be sanctioned if I am wrong. I have been putting up with abuse from JoshuSasori's sockpuppets for over two years, and one of these abuses is emailing other users about me. So when a suspicious message like the above shows up mysteriously, extrapolating that the same thing has happened again is not a violation of AGF. If there is even the slightest concern I might be right, I'd ask SilkTork to forward the message to Yunshui (he's an arbitrator now, right?). 182.249.9.56 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

John provided information he was given on previous incidents involving yourself, and asked for my feedback. It is difficult sometimes when a body of evidence is provided which paints someone in a bad light to know what to make of it, so getting other opinions is always recommended. In my response I said I felt you were a brittle and hostile user who makes things difficult for themself and others, but that I wasn't seeing sufficient evidence to open an investigation against you. My strong recommendation to you is that you focus on building the encyclopedia, and don't respond so aggressively to others. I'd like to look at your contributions history in a week's time and see some positive work on building the encyclopedia or in helping out the project, and not to see you trawling through talkpages talking about personal conflicts. That simply stirs up trouble and wastes people's time as you and they and others then have to deal with the consequences. And I'd like to see you speak with more patience to and about other users - this will help reduce conflict, and make your own time here more pleasant and productive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the allegation that my e-mail address is not public is amusing. I have several e-mail addresses, one for wikipedia alone, but to go further and to allege any sort of dubious, perhaps paranoic, motivation for that is both grossly unfounded and, in fact, a rather obvious violation of WP:AGF. Also, although I did not include the name of the individual who sent the e-mail, if SilkTork so requests, I guess I could forward it to him, and it would be obvious from the information I redacted that, in fact, the individual is anything but blocked, and is still active in wikipedia under that name. And the frankly incredible assumption of Hijiri88 that only one person could possibly object to his behavior, and that anyone else who agrees with it must be a sock of a banned editor, is frankly even more ridiculous. I realize from his history that Hijiri might be seen to snarl first and apologize later, but I can assert that the individual who sent me the e-mail is not banned, at least under the name he is using now, and that the account has been active for a number of years. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. But how many uncontroversial article edits do I need to make over the next week to have my OR-reverting privileges reinstated? Are the 20 or so over the last few days not enough? I was under the impression that when one user inserts OR into an article, and another user reverts it, and the original editor starts an epic ANI pissing contest in which the reverter shows considerably more restraint but when met with constant personal attacks and non-sequiturs eventually loses his cool and uses the word "jackass", the standard operating procedure was not to rebuke both users equally. The personal attacks against me that you requested be stricken are still there, the user openly refusing twice and making further ad hominem remarks along the way. I have complied with all your requests so far, including to go and edit unrelated articles peaceably, while that user has complied with none. And yet when I tried to refute his latest (still-unstricken) ad hominem remark you issued me with a final informal warning. While editing unrelated articles peaceably, I noticed another user openly admitting to engaging in behaviour that has gotten other users blocked, and when I point this out you rebuke not the user engaged in off-wiki contact with a user who has been site-banned for off-wiki harassment, but the victim of said harassment.

Just tell me exactly how many articles I need to edit to get a fair hearing and to be allowed revert OR.

182.249.17.249 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Assistance Needed

There's a couple editors im having issues with. Can you take a look at my summary [1] to see if it has any merit. Zekenyan (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This is the fourth request you have made thus far. See here for the rest: Admin IJBall's Talk Page, No original research/Noticeboard, and an ANI report. AcidSnow (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop incorrectly using wikipedia policies and also stop following me around. BTW IJBALL is not an admin. Zekenyan (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read any of the policies before you claimed that I was using them incorrectly? So far its clear you haven't. AcidSnow (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the situation. Ethnicity issues do tend to arise on Wikipedia; they are probably our biggest cause for conflict. Added to which, they tend to be the hardest to sort out as the varying claims rely on difficult, old or obscure texts, and varying interpretations of such texts. From what I can see you wish to insert an ethnicity claim into an article, and another editor disagrees. The issue is being discussed on the talkpage, and has been referred to an appropriate noticeboard. Discussion is ongoing, and while tense, it is a helpful discussion as people are listening to your views and providing counter arguments. I see no reason for an admin to step in. I am not going to make a pronouncement on any of the claims, and while there is open, healthy discussion going on, there is nothing for me to do. Disagreements are part and parcel of academic endeavour. It is through open dialogue and the sharing and analysis of information that we reach agreements. If you have a different view to others, it is up to you to convince by proof that your point of view holds merit. While it can be difficult, because editing on Wikipedia somehow inflames most of us when our edits are reverted, if you can speak politely and pleasantly to others, they will respond in the same way. If you become aggressive and hostile, so will they. If others become hostile, try as much as possible to ignore their tone of voice, and concentrate only on the content under discussion. See Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. I hope that helps, and that you do manage to resolve your difference of opinion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Zekenyan (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)