User talk:SilentResident

Expulsion of Cham Albanians page

• Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Start of mediation (I hope). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• About the deletion: the correct method would have been to strike it out, as here, but I accept that deletion as a necessary "oops, sorry" correction. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Much appreciated. -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I remember long ago (before I became an admin) a Wikipedia user who went round articles about fiction serieses deleting their episode guides, until he was blocked (not by me). My own saying with so-called trivia is "One man's trivia is often another man's important relevant matter". For example, I have little interest in football, but I do not go round systematically deleting football matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Trivia are an important part of Wikipedic life. While not part of an article's main focus, they often contain valuable information related to it that couldn't be hosted on other articles due to lack of relevancy. For this very reason I have been active in contributing and adding trivia information in various movie-focused and videogame-focused Wikias around the Web (such as Zelda Wikia, Super Mario Wikia, Fringe Wikia, Game of Thrones Wikia, etc) where I happen to be a registered editor. I think they are very interesting and helpful. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• It seems that DevilWearsBrioni refuses to listen to reason on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians (which has already built up to 56 kilobytes), and I or we or someone better seek remedy against him elsewhere, such as a warning to get him banned or blocked. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Yes I agree absolutely. A ban or block is urgently needed on him.

I must inform you that resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing, because he has already ignored any of the previous ARBMAC warnings (one on his Talk: [1] on 26 September 2016, and one another on the Talk archive) and kept up with his disruptive behaviors.

He was very clear to me that: 1) he knows of ARBMAC rules and acknowingly ignores and violates them, 2) he intends to stick to his disruptive behavior until he succeeds to have his biased and POV changes implemented to the article and 3) no one can stop or discourage him from doing that, even when under the threat of being reported to the Arbitration Enforcement for sanctions to be imposed on him. Here I copy his archived reply to me, for you to read) where he vowed to keep up with his disruptions even in the shadow of an AE report against him:

"I can assure you that I was already aware of ARBMAC. I will continue editing the Cham expulsion page; false narratives, temper tantrums, lies and half-truths will not discourage me from editing. As such, it is advised that you actually go through with the report. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC))"

And you know the rest of the story - despite previous Mediation resolutions and full awareness of ARBMAC rules, he not only has returned to the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians, but also has resumed his disruptive edits, with new 3RR breaches, more edit wars, acting against established consensus, violations of Mediator resolutions, even more violations of ARMBAC rules, restoration of the OR and SYNTH tags (which the Mediator Iazyges himself had removed), NPOV violations (see his biased edits where he added the dubious claims about "Greek Ethnic Cleansing against Albanians" to the Aftermath section of the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians...), and, overall, he kept up with an editorial misconduct that goes against Wikipedia's core principles and rules.

Only a permanent ban or block can end his constant disruptions on Expulsion of Cham Albanians and other Balkan-Related articles. He has violated every Wikipedia rule out there, and he has causing many problems to us the rest of the editors who struggled for years to preserve the neutrality in the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, and he has refused to listen to our pleas or be reasoned with. We the editors were already very patient with him thus far (while your Mediation reached 56 kilobytes, imagine how many more kilobytes we reached if we also add to that the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, the No Original Research Noticeboard, and the Incidents Noticeboard, and the Cham Expulsion's Talk Page!), at the cost of our own sanity, and he has already be given many chances to remedy himself and see the errors of his ways to avoid a possible ban, but he won't. This editor's stubbornness should not be underestimated. He really mean it when he says that he does not intend to give up until he gets what he wants on the Expulsion of Cham Albanians. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: to understand how easy and soft we were towards DevilWearsBrioni, you have to imagine how many more kilobytes of chat we wasted with him: while your Mediation reached 56 kilobytes, imagine how many more kilobytes the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, the No Original Research Noticeboard, the Incidents Noticeboard, and the Cham Expulsion's Talk Page, are if combined! Wikipedia is very clear on this: better impose discretionary sanctions to editors refusing to follow the rules rather than waste too much time trying to convince the disruptive editors to be... not disruptive. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: if it is not a problem, I have informed now the Mediator Iazyges about the latest developments on the OR/SYNTH case (it was under his mediation, this summer). I want to thank you and everyone else for their patience on this long dispute. I know such cases can really test everyone's patience, but nevertheless I am very grateful and I hope for it to be over, more or less, either in the one or the other way. Because I don't think I can keep myself forever into this. You have my big thanks and gratitude for your help. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocks and Bans

Read the blocking policy and the banning policy. A block and a ban are two different things, although there is some overlap. A block is a lock that prevents an editor (either a named account, an IP address, or a range of IP addresses) from logging on. A temporary block is used for many reasons, such as to stop edit-warring or due to personal attacks. A block is a technical measure. A blocked editor cannot edit. An account that is blocked cannot log on. If the editor edits logged out, that is a form of block evasion. Another form of block evasion is the creation of a sockpuppet, an additional account for an improper purpose. A ban is a policy action, not a technical action. A ban is a ruling against all editing, or against certain editing. A site ban is enforced by a block. There are also limited bans, primarily topic bans and interaction bans. A topic ban is a ruling that an editor cannot edit in an area where they have been disruptive. What is being discussed in this case is a topic ban. It might be necessary to topic-ban this editor from all edits having to do with the Balkans. There has been in the past and still is a lot of battleground editing in certain areas, such as the Balkans, that have been real battlegrounds. (Two more such areas are Palestine and Israel, and India and Pakistan.) There is some confusion between an indefinite block and a site ban, but, although editors who are site-banned are indefinitely blocked, they are not the same. Editors are indefinitely blocked for being vandals, trolls, flamers, or otherwise not here to contribute positively. In this case, there is agreement that a site ban is not necessary, but that a topic ban is necessary. If an editor who has been topic-banned edits in the area that they have been banned from editing, they will be blocked for a period of time, with escalating blocks for repeat infractions. Do you now understand the difference, which is important but not always understood? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated, my dear. This cleared any confusion. So, yes, I believe a block is not what we need here. A topic ban is much more appropriate in dealing with this disruption. I support your proposal on ANI for a topic ban. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, @Iazyges:, @Anthony Appleyard: now it seems the OR/SYNTH case is taken to the Arbitration Enforcement. [2] -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Dear Anthony, if you do not mind, I have requested the closure of the ANI discussion since it was moved to the AE. Is that ok for you? I made the request because having 2 separate discussions at same time about the same editor, can be confusing for him/her [3]. I hope this is not a problem for you? -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments at arbitration enforcement

A comment of yours was removed from AE as it was part of a threaded discussion outside your comment section. Threaded discussions are not permitted on AE. Please feel free to place the comment in your section if you would like to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the removed comment was now moved properly under UserName Statement Section. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You are slightly over 1000 words. Your statement is likely to be trimmed or ignored. At this point, my advice is to let the Arbitration Enforcement be closed with a warning. You aren't going to "win" by continuing to argue. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Trimmed it drastically, removed 3 replies. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges:, @Robert McClenon: I am disappointed with a certain editor's attacks on AE against the Mediators who volunteered to mediate in the notorious OR/SYNTH case. More precisely, the editor Resnjari, in his latest AE reply, has complained about the Mediator Iazyges "closing his mediation too early and thus not give him time to participate in it". However, if he REALLY wanted to participate in Mediations, then I wonder why he hasn't done it so far in Anthony Appleyard's Mediation? After all, Anthony is mediating in the same OR/SYNTH case as Iazyges, and he has kept it STILL open for more than 3 weeks already, but editor Resnjari is nowhere to be seen. Seeing him complaining after he has choosen to not participate, then what can I conclude? -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments at arbitration enforcement (continue 1)

@Robert McClenon:, you have said that there was "an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered" You will need to be more careful before making such expressions against other editors and ask yourself why we relied on your help in the first place. If there was indeed a campaign against DevilWearsBrioni, if there was really "an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered" like you said, then you should first ask yourself who has endured the disruption, who preferred to ask your help instead of filling the AE report on her own and why she accepted your efforts to bring the case to mediation in spite of her own doubt that there could be any tangible outcomes. I want to believe that you haven't forgotten what happened in the past 5 months and why we counted on your help, but such statements even if not ill-intended, they can send a very wrong message to the disruptive editors. It gives them the false impression that "I did nothing wrong, I am victim of others who want to dump me", and honestly, this risks making him even more defiant in our calls to respect the rules of the Wikipedia community, part of which you are a respectable member. I am afraid defiance generates less respect to rules and more disruption. If you really do care about improving his editorial conduct and give him a chance to be forgiven for his actions, then, please, being a little bit more careful with your statements in front of him, and do not underestimate his stubbornness. You have seen with your own eyes what we have been through with his stubbornness and filibustering. Even in the official mediation which you have called and observed, you have witnessed with your own eyes how things kept going out of control with him. A project such as Wikipedia needs to be protected from phenomena of that kind, and for this reason, we do not need feed it to make the 10-month disruption by that editor worsen than it already was and is. A little bit more caution in dealing with disruptive editors is not just recommended, but necessary, my friend. Otherwise nothing good can come out of all this. While your intentions are to end the disruption, such unfortunate statements from your part can only be counter-productive to the issue, as it gives the disruptors a leverage against the editors who have tried to defend Wikipedia's articles from disruption and rather sends the wrong message to the disruptors that they can escape the consequences for their actions and do as they please. I have supported your proposal as well as Alexikoua's and Iazyge's proposals for action against him, but please, describing these as "an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered", undermines the very same collective efforts in which you have been the lead and only raises questions. Please, do not take this as criticism from my part, but as an advice because encouraging the disruptors and prolonging this 10-month-long dispute isn't beneficial for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I appreciate a lot your tireless efforts on resolving this. You have my gratitude and thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges:, @Anthony Appleyard: I appreciate a lot your sincere efforts to mediate to the infamous OR/SYNTH case, but I really want to move ahead and leave the month-long DevilWearsBrioni case behind, like everyone else here. I have done my best to participate in both mediations, but as you may have witnessed, there was no tangible outcome. When there is no outcome, usually the best is to drop the case even if you believe that it has to be resolved somehow. I am a human too and I can't be constantly engaged in never-ending disputes that lead nowhere and produce nothing the ample but grievance of your part and filibustering of their part. I am fully aware of the Anthony Appleyard's mediation being a privileged one and the results are binding, however, I feel that there is a difference between a normal mediation where participation is characterized by good faith and willingness for contribution, and a mediation where participation of disruptive editors is characterized by bad faith, POV, filibustering and stubbornness. For this very reason, I am not willing to participate in future mediations where user DevilWearsBrioni is invited and engaged, given his failure to be reasoned, filibustering and stubbornness. I am sorry but I can't keep myself into all this forever. It has been too much for me. While others may have endless amount of energy for filibustering, I do not have that much energy to bother with them all time and everyday. But even so, I could like to inform you that, in the future, I will not refuse to participate to any new mediations that may be called, as long as they have been requested, not on the grounds of resolving content disputes caused by disruptive, filibustering and stubborn editors (as is the current's case, with DevilWearsBrioni), but on the grounds of resolving content disputes between non-disruptive editors, as per Wikipedia's rules and conditions for requesting a mediation. With simple words, any future mediations where there is good faith and commitment/contribution among the participating editors in improving an article's quality, will have my support. Again, I appreciate a lot your tireless efforts on this. Both of you have my gratitude and thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)