User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc

Notice: threads on this page may be automatically archived after 10 days of inactivity.

Vandalism
Level 3

Hi

"Please just post diffs of conduct you believe supports your argument that livelikemusic is engaged in inappropriate behavior."

Would you mind telling me how to do that as I don't know everything about how to properly link to something. I'm new here. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The basics are covered here: Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide (as linked in the instructions for starting a thread at ANI). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither of us have even been to that page in a couple hours now. Both of us have moved on.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Iran

Hello Mendaliv. You commented in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive842#PoV pushing. WP:3RR, political allegiance, bias, and so go on about a dispute at the Iran article. You are one of a small number of uninvolved people to take a look. Just now there is a new report at WP:AN3 about edits by User:Quzilbash123 at the Iran article. See WP:AN3#User:Qizilbash123 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: ). Perhaps you want to comment there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I see this has already been handled, but I left a comment there anyway since I concur with the outcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

dogging edits

I'd appreciate it if you would stop dogging my edits on this article. You showed up on the AfD for Novavax and now you're here. I'm in the middle of editing and improving this article and just now adding sources. Please stop. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I don't get it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Please stay off my talk page and stop dogging my edits. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, @SW3 5DL: I will be paying close attention to your edits to the article on NewSpring Church. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with an administrator. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, SW3 5DL, consider yourself on notice that this edit summary is inappropriate and a further personal attack. I suggest you refrain from making further personal attacks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you try to help out over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Thompson_(Aryan_Brotherhood)

I have a new editor with like 6 edits that signed up today. They are blanking out whole sections of this article, and putting really negative BLP type stuff up. I warned her a time or two and she stopped. So I went to work to try to piece the article back together from the old diff, but they have started again. If you are an admin, can you take a look? I am going to hang back now and will try to help fix the article later if needed. If you are not an admin, could you try to get one to look at this page?

Michael_Thompson_(Aryan_Brotherhood)

thanks, Carriearchdale (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carrie. I'm not an admin, but I've taken a quick look at the article and the edits you mentioned. You're in the right as far as Morningstar90's edits to that article being inappropriate; there really aren't any references. I think, for now, taking a wait-and-see approach is better, and warning Morningstar90 as appropriate. I don't think an admin is going to get involved at this point. I'm wondering where all that content came from out of nowhere though; it looks pretty decently formatted for a new user. I'll try to take another look later. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make this personal

This is my first time taking someone to AN/I, so sorry if I'm not doing it right, but please don't make this a personal grudge against me. I just want to be able to contribute without Dan56 making me feel uncomfortable and unwanted. I'm a professional writer in real life, so most of my contribs will be solid, but he has stopped me everywhere I go and made me feel unwanted and embarrassed. Harmelodix (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I didn't mean to make it personal, and I apologize if it seemed like I was. Please understand that accusations of impropriety made against contributors in good standing are taken very seriously. Accusations of hounding no less so. But you've got to understand, merely going and checking someone's contribs is not hounding, even reverting several in rapid fashion. Even if he'd never been on those pages before. It has to be a lot more than that.

Look, I'm not going to deny it: there are times when I get downright pissed when someone reverts my edits. And when that same person goes and reverts me on another page, I start to wonder if that person has something against me. My background is in law, so I hope you'll forgive me for giving some corollaries from my own experiences.

First, what matters is not that the other user reverted several of your edits in quick succession, but that there's a pattern of behavior indicating hounding, much as is required with a RICO case.

Second, I consider hounding similar to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. At base, the tort sounds pretty straightforward, right? Someone inflicts emotional distress on you intentionally, they should be found of having done that, right? Not quite. In practice, it's subject to one of the highest bars imaginable, and some of the most outrageous behavior you've ever heard of will be found not to meet the standard. Likewise, Wikihounding is subject to a very high bar. It has to be more than a few times over a short period, and it is entirely permissible to go and check someone's contribs, and even revert several of them, provided there's some good reason for it.

Anyway, I hope that explains my position a bit better. My apologies if it's a long-winded explanation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Per WP:HOUND: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I promise you that Dan56 is doing exactly that to me and several other editors. Please look into Dan56's history more deeply before you judge my complaint. His repeated reference to my edits as "tedious" is a personal attack. He reufses to engage me at talk so what can I do? Harmelodix (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken another look. Specifically, I looked at the editor interaction tool comparison between your two accounts. In that report are 18 pages; only 12 of those have an interval between his edit and your edit less than the age of your account, and of those 12, I'm going to say two (User talk:Dan56 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) can't count. So we're talking about up to 10 pages, for which in all but one case Dan made the first edit (another has his previous edit over 400 days prior); but you rightly pointed out that may not mean anything. It looks like the crux of the dispute is on Get Rich or Die Tryin' (album), where I see you both going back and forth on a couple edits. Honestly, I've looked at the timelines for all 10 of those pages, and while I see some rather petty reverts on Dan's part, I see nothing indicating hounding. All those those pages, Dan had been there not long before you. Moreover, I'm willing to AGF that Dan's been put on a rather high state of sensitivity to possibly socking: I'm not saying that you're a sock, but that he might have been reacting to what he thought was socking. But after the 12th, I'm not so sure he should have been as concerned (though Coren did say there was some quacking).

All that said... hmm... some of his reverts are problematic. Reverting here to revert an "unexplained removal" by you, for instance. I'm not sure I'd call that a removal, and either way, it's not the sort of "unexplained removal" we usually refer to when we say we're reverting an unexplained removal: you didn't blank a section, for instance. That wouldn't make the revert inappropriate: if, for instance, Dan disagreed with the change you made, and wanted to invoke WP:BRD. But of course, in that case, the right move would have been to actually discuss. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird.

Frankly, I'm not prepared to say Dan is hounding you. If a similar series of edits happened again in a week or two, or if it persisted for another couple days, and Dan's odd reverts were targeted at you specifically, I would feel more comfortable asking him to back off. As it stands, I am not. With the number of pages you've edited (only 83 unique pages since June 8th), it's hard to say there's hounding. That said, I do feel comfortable instructing Dan to engage in discussion with you or to cut the reverting, and I will post my conclusions to that effect at the ANI thread. I also feel he is likely violating WP:BITE with his unenlightening edit summaries. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If I could butt in.... I looked at those weird "unexplained removal" edits and I think Dan might have been using "unexplained" to mean "no edit summary", since Harmelodix had left the edit summary blank when making those edits. Not that I think this justifies his reversions, but I think it does explain those summaries. --Ca2james (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes a little more sense—just a little. I still think he's well within WP:BITE territory with everything else, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a big part of my concern with Dan56; just because an editor leaves the edit summary blank is not reason in and of itself to revert that edit, which might be helpful. Dan56 is not judging these reverts by anything more than who makes them and where, which is hounding because he systematically drives editors away from pages he edits by reverting their work and confronting them everywhere they go. He exhausts them with petty content disputes and revert wars where one or more of his friends help him to control content. I strongly suggest that you watch him for a while, because if you pay attention long enough you will see that the tedious editor is Dan56, not the dozens of users that he drags through the mud in attempts to discredit them and drive them away. Medaliv, are you going to issue a formal warning to Dan56 at his talk page? Harmelodix (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point I'm going to have to let this one sit for a bit: I'm presently occupied with another editor issue. I'll come back to this later. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP in userspace

Regarding this. I thought I made myself clear I intended to stay away from any diff involving an editor that may portray him/her in a negative light by specifically requesting CSD U1. And I invite you to visit my page again. Not only is this giving a false impression, but it seems to be WP;DEADHORSE. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 00:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that you violated your NPA agreement by suggesting another editor had engaged in fraud to attain his academic credentials. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

One stupid remark by myself does not make many, OK? I urge you to take a more comprehensive, less one-sided, look at my history since February, and compare it with pre-August 2013. I used to be nastier with a higher frequency (not necessarily in terms of time, but in percentage of disputes I was involved in), compared with this, where I had exhibited considerable patience even with one who was unabashed about his disruption. You cannot expect people to change instantaneously, and while this doesn't excuse all of my actions, it puts many of them in an understanding light.

Also, if my only intent was to edit war with Paisan1 across multiple pages, I would not have bothered consulting him on his talk page. That should have been obvious from the start. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 00:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)