User talk:KalHolmann

May 2018

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted all your inappropriate notices on article talk pages. Please don't do that again. WP:ANI is the place to get community input on editor behavior. And be careful who you notify. Any indications of canvassing could lead to a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, in posting a notice to the Talk page of each related BLP cited when I added a new section to the George Galloway talk page, I sought to comply with COI Noticeboard instructions, which state: "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue." (Emphasis added.) When I file a report to COI Noticeboard, I intend to request that Philip Cross should be topic banned from editing not only George Galloway, but the other "goons" with whom he is in open conflict—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens—all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited. May I assume that, by prematurely closing the discussion at Talk:George Galloway, and reverting my additions to the aforementioned six pages, you have cleared the way for me to file a report at COI Noticeboard? KalHolmann (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As I stated in my close, you need to file at WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, thanks for your advice. However, I will file at COI Noticeboard instead, since that seems more suitable to this case. KalHolmann (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly advice. You are asking for a community-imposed topic ban. That can be raised in two places. See WP:CBAN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, thanks again. So, would you object to my filing a report at COI Noticeboard if I omit any request for remedies, such as topic banning Philip Cross? I really appreciate your guidance here, whether you consider it "advice" or not. KalHolmann (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as you don't request community-imposed sanctions posting at WP:COIN is fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, alas, your sound advice went for naught. After removing my request for remedies, I filed a report at COI Noticeboard. It was closed literally two minutes later, with the explanation: "Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around." (This was determined in the span of two minutes. Amazing!) Frustrated at this second peremptory shutdown of the discussion I sought to prompt, I filed a report, with my request for remedies restored, at ANI. It was closed five minutes later by the same Admin, with the explanation: "WP:FORUMSHOP." Forum shopping is defined at the relevant page as "raising the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages," and is forbidden because it "does not help develop consensus." Duh! How can editors arrive at consensus if my every attempt to stimulate a discussion is instantly quashed? Forgive me for concluding that Wikipedia is circling its wagons around Philip Cross. KalHolmann (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you talk to the admin who closed your thread and ask them to re-open to get more input. If they say no, then I suppose you can add a note after the closed section saying you disagree with the perceived premature close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I shall avoid that particular exercise in futility. I know when the deck is stacked against me. KalHolmann (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Proxy edit for a blocked editor again and I will block you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, I deny the charge, but acknowledge your warning. KalHolmann (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § George Galloway, for reasons I think I explain in the case filing. I apologise for singling you out, I did so only because, as I state there, I think you will be capable of articulating what might be termed the pro-Galloway view. You seem able to keep on track and marshal your arguments. I suspect that this is actually fgeeeeyyj

Yuhte Dgktwhat you want, since if there is credible evidence of issues with PC you will be able to file private evidence and, if vindicated, get meaningful and binding restrictions. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• My response. KalHolmann (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Note

You might actually want to look at what you're reverting. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)