User talk:Krzyhorse22

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Accusations of unsourced POV pushing

Hi Krzyhorse22, just repeating for record and courtesy purposes my warning at Mullah Omar. This is at least the second time you've accused another user, who you disagree with, of not having facts to back their argument, when in actual fact they can bring facts, and the issue is actually one of interpretation (the first time being at Afghan Americans). Please stop accusing other users of 'unsourced POV pushing' in these circumstances. Doing so is unwarranted without basis in fact, and constitutes a WP:Personal Attack. Regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I was sufficiently concerned about your allegations about my behaviour to check my conduct with another admin, which occurred at User talk:Nick-D#User:Krzyhorse22. Nick is concerned about your behaviour as well. Please avoid accusations of POVpushing, and be civil. Otherwise it is likely you will face further admin action. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Wikipedia does it says that accusing someone of POV pushing is a personal attack? That other user and you both are expressing your personal opinions, without showing a single RS. Calling Mullah Omar a president or head of state is a personal opinion, it is not supported by any source. Therefore, it constitutes WP:POV pushing in Wikipedia, which is discouraged.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA#Whatis says '..Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.' Thus saying someone is guilty of 'unsourced POV pushing' counts. Given that I have had my actions in regard to you reviewed, positively, by another admin, and given your disruptive behaviour, I will ask you again, finally, to abide by the rules. Stop accusing the person, and concentrate on the content, or you will be blocked, initially for a short period such as one day. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisly what you're doing (i.e., insulting and disparaging me). Also, I'm sure that you're emailing your friends to support you. I say this because no American editor has supported your view, those who sided with you are from Australia and the UK.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that you've just done it again? What at all does it matter the nationality of the admin I selected? I work with the admins I know; I don't routinely interact with all 500 plus of them. If you value your editing privileges on WP, please, stop commenting on me personally, and concentrate on whatever my actions are: right at the moment, repeatedly requesting you to remain civil in your discussions with other users, and comment on their references, rather than them! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point above was that I find you as a non-neutral editor. The way you're approaching me here constitutes, inter alia, harassment. See WP:HARASS, which states: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I advise you to stop arguing with me over who is being civil and who is not, rather contact other admins (not your friends) and ask them if I'm civil or not. That's the way things should be in Wikipedia and since you're an admin you should know all of this.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are making repeated personal attacks, that you've been twice (or depending on how you count it) admonished at ANI for those personal attacks within the last ten days, repeated aspersions about sources without backing them up (such as a blanket claim that 'Head of the Supreme Council' in Afghanistan is a made-up wiki-ism), ignoring consensus at multiple pages, and pushing your own line disruptively beyond a reasonable point, I can only repeat: I am protecting the encyclopedia by monitoring you. Please change your behaviour, and stop flogging the dead horse. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The official title in the introduction of Mohammed Omar's article is manifestly contrary to what reliable sources report. As I explained at Talk:Mohammed Omar, he was undisputably Emir of Afghanistan/Commander or leader of the Faithful. [1] [2] [3]. I think you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. To you everything I say is construed as a personal attack. I didn't ignore consensus at muliple pages. Everything else you accuse me of is untrue.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Notice

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo. Thank you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin versus Bonn

Thankyou for fixing my error about the location of the 2001 conference. The location was important however: Germany is a big potential donor, and thus having it in Germany was significant, as is also shown by the title of our article. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Hi Krzyhorse. I noticed that you would accept mentoring. I would be prepared to mentor you if you still want. You can drop a note here, to discuss how to proceed, and what issues you perceive you are up against. Initial thoughts, try to stay calm, and if you have an issue, or are pissed off, discuss with me before editing. Four eyes are better than two, and talking something out often gives issues a different perspective. And do not immediately counter - edit. There is no stopwatch here. Regards Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I don't edit much and when I do it's mainly improving Afghan related pages. I find interest in these topics because Afghanistan has long been isolated (sort of like North Korea or Iran). I think the world should know everything about every country and its people. I sometimes notice clearly incorrect information so I just correct it (and cite a more reliable source), and once in a while my correction turns into a dispute which I often avoid. Thanks for your advise, as you can see at Afghan Americans I did not revert but discussed the issue until it was finally resolved at Talk:Afghan Americans.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good that you got back. The first priority is to improve you standing on here. With increased confidence from colleagues comes less reversions etc and a growing acceptance of your contributions. I would suggest strongly that for starters you go to the current admin board discussion and apologise. You need to be sincere. Put away your pride. It can blind you. I was like you once. I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather by the way :). Think of the wasted energy in fights that you have had, as opposed to actually improving articles you are interested in. Avoid wasted energy. If you are sincere, we can avoid a topic ban. Second priority is to manage future issues. I suggest you tell me what articles you are working on. I will watchlist them. Please discuss any edits with sources with me first if they are in any way controversial. I suspect that you would be a great asset to Wikipedia, if we can get this period of bad blood behind us. You can also teach me about a topic range which I would be very interested in. That's all for now. Please continue dialogue with me. Regards Simon, or Irondome (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update. We already have a positive outcome, in terms of your agreeing to mentorship and your positive response. We have avoided a topic ban, and the thread is closed. This however is entirely contingent on you working with me closely. This is the fruit of co-operation. From it, I hope you can see how quickly positive outcomes occur. Now we go go forward! Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should note for both of your information that Krzyhorse22's questioning of reliable sources regarding Omar's status as Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan has not taken place in the correct manner. He has previously edit-warred removal of sourced, reliable content describing Omar as Head of State, and HSC, from 1996. I intend to restore the previously existing wording; should someone wish to question reliability of sources, the place is the talkpage, but consensus there is for inclusion of the material, and thus the next forum is WP:RSN. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your intervention at this early stage is unhelpful. I shall be discussing this with my mentoree when he resumes dialogue with me. I require that you have no contact with this user at this stage, and to take no unagreed action. Irondome (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Irondome; I meant only to inform you both at the same time. Apologies again. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin slapdown! It's The Only Way To Be Sure

79.68.139.189 (talk)