User talk:Horse Eye's Back

Archives (Index)

2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

October 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to VivaTaiwan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. A deprecated source can still be cited for statements about what the source itself said, are you paying attention when you remove stuff like this? jp×g 22:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This page isn't about the deprecated source, we have nothing which establishes that they should be included on the page. Also you misused rollback, don't do it again or you may lose rollback privileges. Also I very clearly explained the reasoning in the edit summary so it seems you used the wrong template. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Joseph Gu, you may be blocked from editing. jp×g 23:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

While it's true that it's a deprecated source, I really think you should be looking at the articles before you edit them, to determine if removal is appropriate. Deprecation of a source does not mean that literally every thing (including clearly uncontroversial statements) ever published by the source magically becomes untrue -- are you honestly trying to say that the Global Times is not a reliable source for what the Global Times said about something? jp×g 23:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@JPxG: That generally only applies to pages about the subject or their activity. In order to even be eligible for about self in the first place on an unrelated page a deprecated source has to be mentioned by a reliable source. You should also realize that any quotations from living people by definition fall under WP:BLP. Please actually engage rather than tag bomb, your lack of willingness to engage in talk page discussions is becoming disruptive. Thank you for taking note that your use of rollback was inappropriate and not using it for the remainder of your reverts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

help on the trade war article

Can you take a look at the debate on this section of the talk page of the CHina-United States trade war? I see that you've been involved on the main article and that you've had extensive prior interactions with one of the editors on that thread. (Thucydides411) I have a feeling that the content dispute from there is going to escalate to ANI and want to make sure I have the clearest idea of who my opponent(s) will be if that should happen. Your input would be most welcomed. Flaughtin (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Bludgeoning articles

Can you please stop bludgeoning articles? Yesterday you chopped up Conor O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin and refused to let me improve it. Now you have chopped up Srđan Šaper and Idoli. Especially the last one is interesting, as you claimed that the bludgeoning was done on grounds of BLP but I have never seen a band being a living person. Especially not when the band is disbanded. The Banner talk 19:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: Thats not what WP:BLUDGEON means. Please review WP:BLP, the BLP policy applies to all information about living people on all pages, even talk and admin. E.g. statements about the living members of the band are all covered by BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You have been warned now... The Banner talk 19:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: I have not acutally been warned... Are we clear on what the BLP policy is and what it applies to? You seemed confused for a while there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I try to do it friendly first. But it is your risk, not mine. The Banner talk 19:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If by friendly you mean arrogant, disruptive, and full of misplaced ownership of a wikipedia page then yes you did try to do it friendly first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Just so we’re clear bludgeoning doesnt apply where you keep saying it does, on wikipedia "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people. This can happen on a talk page, deletion discussion or in any discussion at Wikipedia. It is undesirable. Doing so may be considered a form of disruptive editing.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing uncontroversial text because it has a deprecated source or a source request is not positive for an article. Especially when you remove a large part of the text. The Banner talk 19:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: Controversial means anything that has been or is likely to be objected to, by definition anything that has been removed has been objected to. The very act of objecting makes it controversial even if it wasn’t already. Its removal from a BLP page is actually required by BLP, not removing it is a BLP violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence? (of the objections, I mean) The Banner talk 19:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: For Conor O’Brien the relevant diffs are [1],[2], and [3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Srđan Šaper have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Do not misuse WP:BLPTemplate:Z186 The Banner talk 15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The Banner its a BLP, and just FYI removing significant BLP violations is one of the WP:3RRNO so if you’re thinking of continuing to edit war over it don't. The only one who will face sanctions is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Also you don't appear to have undone it, please don’t misuse tags like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Remember that you were threatening me over it. You should tone down a bit. Your aggressiveness will cause you trouble pretty soon. The Banner talk 16:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No threats have been made, in fact if you notice your talk page is completely free of warning templates despite you adding unsourced information to three different BLPs... My restraint has been remarkable. How many times have you posted on my talk page by now? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

From your own editsummary: Undid revision 989396218 by The Banner (talk) The next time you violate BLP you will get a formal warning. I call that a threat. The Banner talk 17:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You will, I technically should have given you a warning each of the first half dozen times... Please see Wikipedia:Harassment “Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats." I’ve been extremely lenient of your misconduct because I believe that your heart is in the right place and you’ve just never learned wikipedia policy and procedure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you can quote all kinds of pages. But that still makes your attitude okay. The Banner talk 18:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly on both points. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you can quote all kinds of pages. But that still dies not makes your attitude okay. The Banner talk 17:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Sorry, correction.

Return

Welcome back, Jack. Activist (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Han Chinese nationalism has been accepted

Han Chinese nationalism, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Opalzukor (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

UN Map "Consensus"

Hey, I noticed you are an active user on the Taiwan wiki page and had a question regarding maps depicting disputed states such as Taiwan. I have been told that a "consensus" has been formed to always include Taiwan as part of the PRC on maps related to the UN. Do you have any idea where this consensus originated? I also asked on the village pump, but haven't received many responses yet. I'm a new editor and looking for a bit more context. Eclipsed830 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eclipsed830: Thats interesting, I’ve never heard of that consensus... In general we do the opposite of that, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Maps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Dude

Talk:Taiwan is a mess right now. Several people there seem sus. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: that happens every now and again on pages where there is a strong outside interest against wikipedia’s consensus (tbh its the same sort of conduct whether the outside interest is a business, a country, or a religious organization... They all seem to fight dirty in a similar way). Its best to just let them spit into the wind rather than continue to engage when the SPAs become tendentious. As they have no actual desire to work to improve wikipedia their editing often ends completely within a week or two if they aren’t fed and as they have no interest in working towards or respecting a consensus they rarely actually end up accomplishing anything. Also remember that its a common practice of sockmasters to create accounts specifically to provoke good editors into taking actions which lead to them being banned, its important to not take the bait and keep a cool head even when a new account is going apeshit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A certain user (I don't want to ping him) has decided to open an arbitration case against me. My crime was removing comments, which I admittedly did. However, I transferred the bulk of those comments over to my own user talk page. Also, hilariously, another user collapsed a thread that I started, asking about the legitimacy of Nathan Rich, and in his edit summary, he accused me of pushing a "far-right" agenda. I'm an anarchist, lol. I'm not gonna do anything stupid from this point forward. In any case, my arguments are rock solid, whereas their arguments amount to gaslighting, as I've explained in the talk page. Thanks for the support. <3 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to sit this one out. I've been threatened with a block, though I haven't actually been blocked yet. I've been let off with a very close warning. Fight the good fight, comrade. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Lostromantic (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What is to be done?

I saw this comment. What should be done about it?VR _talk 17:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: given that the blatant behavior is continuing today I would support any report filed, they’re pretty clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have other examples? This edit looks pretty WP:COATRACK-y, which was eventually reverted by Drmies. What other examples are there? VR _talk 20:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Even more of their edits on that page were later reverted. I think their created articles list [4] is informative... We get stuff like "The Murder of Wilma Andersson whereupon she was murdered by her Swedish-Iraqi boyfriend happened in November 2019 in Uddevalla, Sweden. Her boyfriend was arrested in his absence 3 December and was apprehended 4 December.” (Murder of Wilma Andersson) and I don’t know about you but it seems weird to mention the murderer’s ethnicity but not his name while mentioning the victims name but not ethnicity. Admittedly this is a horrible crime, but they seem to go out of their way to highlight racial aspects of things that an NPOV article just wouldn’t highlight or feature. They are also a specific type of crime, we have a half dozen very detailed pages about crimes committed by immigrants to European countries against young caucasian European women. All of them explicitly mention the ethnicity of the criminal or accused criminal in the lead:

• “Krantz was raped and murdered by Ephrem Yohannes, a 23-year-old Ethiopian immigrant,” Murder of Elin Krantz
• “Ali Bashar Ahmad Zebari, a 21-year-old asylum seeker from Iraqi Kurdistan,[1][2][3][4][5] confessed to the murder and was found guilty” Killing of Susanna Feldmann (notice the massive WP:OVERCITE on the ethnicity/asylum seeker part?)
• “Moroccan truck driver Boujemaa Lamrabat was sentenced to life in prison” Murder of Sophia Lösche
• “Mireille Bold, a 17-year-old German girl, was stabbed to death on 12 March 2018 in her apartment in Flensburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany by her Afghan ex-boyfriend.” Murder of Mireille B.

The rest of their article creations are similar but I found this trope particularly disturbing, nobody should be using the victims of sexual and domestic violence for racist ends. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice work

Good to see you back in the swing around here! The Little Platoon (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Allegation vs. conclusion regarding Brereton's findings

Just letting you know that I was soliciting feedback about how to refer to Brereton's findings at Talk:Brereton_Report#Allegation_vs._conclusion. Your comments would be welcome. TheFeds 12:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan Wikipedia article

Taiwan -- I just wanted to inform you that this article is of utmost importance to me because I actually directly learnt of my Taiwanese heritage through this article. I read the introduction to the article in 2017 and some of the details matched my family history, which I previously believed was so unusual that it could not be pinned down to a single country or event. I grew up as a far-removed member of the Taiwanese diaspora in Australia. My ancestors migrated from Japanese Taiwan to Dutch Indonesia during the 1900s–1930s. In 1941–1942, during World War II, they were arrested by the Dutch Indonesian government (on the basis of being Japanese) and were held in an Australian internment camp for four years. My family is currently based in Australia directly as a result of my ancestors' internment here. Due to family trauma, knowledge of my Taiwanese heritage was lost with my maternal grandmother (who is still alive, by the way, but just doesn't like to talk about her Taiwanese heritage). Ever since I discovered my Taiwanese heritage in 2017, I've been researching a lot about Taiwan on the internet and I've been getting in contact with Taiwan-focused academics. In any case, In wkpd's comments about the Taiwan Wikipedia article are absolute nonsense. I'm especially not impressed by this particular dissertation of his: Why it's misleading. Especially for people in the west, they need to know the fact that Taiwan is not simply a "country". Things like not including Taiwan in map of China will cause significant consequences that Wikipedia readers absolutely deserve to know. Imagine a staff making a PPT that will include a map of China, and he sees the Google result on the right. He may choose a map of China without Taiwan, and cause trouble to his company. We should not simply say "Taiwan is a country" or "Taiwan is not a country", which is non-neutral, misleading and may cause real life troubles to readers because of inaccuracy of infomation. Taiwan's political status dispute should be mentioned in the first sentence, because it's about its identity and may cause significant consequences. If this person were actually concerned with the wellbeing of certain people reading certain Wikipedia articles, then he should look at my own personal situation for a prime example. These days, Taiwan forms a major component of my identity, in more ways than one. If it weren't for the Taiwan Wikipedia article, I probably would have never discovered my Taiwanese ancestry, since even my parents didn't know about it before I discovered it. Anyway, regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m glad you’re enjoying editing and exploring wikipedia! I wouldn’t worry too much about In wkpd, they appear to be a WP:SPA who doesn't understand wikipedia policy and so is just saying whatever they think followed by “NPOV” or similar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, before I joined Wikipedia and made a series of edits (note: much of the content that I added was unnecessary, so I subsequently deleted a lot of it) to this article -- Taiwanese Australians -- the article claimed that prior to the 1950s emigration off of Taiwan was negligible. However, I have solid evidence that my own ancestors, who originated from Taiwan, "immigrated" (note: involuntarily) to Australia in 1942. Of course, that's only a few years earlier, though it's still technically earlier. I added a segment (Taiwanese Australians#Internment of Japanese and Taiwanese people in Australia during WWII) to the article explaining that the first known Taiwanese immigrants to Australia arrived in 1942. There could have been earlier Taiwanese immigrants, though I'm just unaware of them... And nobody else has bothered to go and challenge the claim that 1942 was the earliest year of Taiwanese immigration to Australia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that this statement prior to the 1950s emigration off of Taiwan was negligible doesn't actually claim that Taiwanese people first immigrated to Australia in the 1950s... Instead, what it's claiming is that Taiwanese people first starting leaving Taiwan (and immigrating to many different countries) in the 1950s. I suspect that this statement is mainly referencing the significant number of Taiwanese who migrated to the United States after the Chinese Civil War. In any case, Taiwanese people did emigrate from Taiwan prior to the 1950s, though it's unclear how common this was. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, HEJ. Unfortunately, I do not have infinite time to waste trying to defend myself in arbitration (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). As far as I can tell, In wkpd is either trying to get me fully banned or partially banned from editing Wikipedia. I've been using this account for two years, and I don't own any other accounts because "sockpuppeting" isn't really my thing. Meanwhile, In wkpd has only been editing Wikipedia for a week, though they created this account nearly five years ago, and it seems to be some kind of "sleeper account", though I can't identify whether In wkpd operates other accounts as well. It is quite ironic how In wkpd has been studying the Wikipedia rules as if it were the Gospel, and yet they have still blatantly violated multiple rules themself (note: I'm not denying that I myself have broken rules too). Personally, I am guilty of not having thoroughly read Wikipedia's rules. I'm going to try to read up on them in the future. Regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion#File:Wikipedia_article_Taiwan_shows_up_as_1st_result_of_Google_search_calling_Taiwan_a_country.png -- Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding an edit.

@Horse Eye's Back:I noticed that you reverted the edit that I posted on the page for Taiwan. You said that my edit "as a sentence that doesnt make sense". I am confused as to what you meant. Can you please clarify so I may rectify any mistakes I may have made? JadeEditor (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in question was "Show map of Taiwan (dark green) with ROC constitutional territorial claims as interpreted by the law (light green)” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I was more specifically referring to what exactly was my error. I changed the description due to the fact that this was not only a KMT claim, but the commonly accepted law in the ROC. JadeEditor (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is non-sensical, law can not interpret. I think your information is a bit dated, that hasn’t been law in the ROC since 1992. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t really mean like the law is a living thing with a mind, but that the law specifically says this as it’s legal reality (at least in the de jure and not de facto sense). I will be more clear in the future.

Also, the borders according the legal statute has not been followed to facilitate a change of national borders, and as such is still law, not just a claim made by any political party, at least by what I can tell. JadeEditor (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware of the changes to the ROC/Taiwan constitution in 1992 and the subsequent supreme court ruling? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to the [Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (1992)], then yes, I am aware of the change. And after going through it, I have not found indications that the claims over Mainland China have been revoked, only the subsequent repeal of laws relating to the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion. Now, I did also look at the interpretation, although that was a long time ago, and so I will subsequently review it once more. JadeEditor (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC).

Wolf Warrior Diplomacy

Hi, what does lol mean? Thehighwayman5 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If I may, LOL is usenet-jargon. --Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I know what it literally means but he just undid a revision of mine only saying lol. its very confusing and a tad bit rude Thehighwayman5 (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

edit-warring by ‎Niezginela

‎Hi, Niezginela is going on with his edit-warring[5]. Regrettably, nobody seem to have cared about your report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive420#User:Niezginela_reported_by_User:Horse_Eye's_Back_(Result:_). On the part of this user, there is no sign of any willingness to even deal with the specific allegations. --Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

cut & paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Law enforcement in the Republic of China a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Law enforcement in Taiwan. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A request at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge is awaiting administration. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Vague excuse for vandalizing East Asian Cultural Sphere Article

You have vandalized the article twice now. The excuse used was "unsupported changes". This is coming just solely from you, and I don't even know if you are an expert on this topic or not.

Just because you don't agree with the information that corresponds with the published sources included, it does not mean that you are entitled to delete things you don't agree with. You must not be lazy and actually comb through the changes and understand why the new edits were included without reverting massive amounts of added data. Otherwise, your disruptive changes will be counted as vandalism. 124.168.91.91 (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thats not how WP:ONUS or WP:BRD work, its up to you to get WP:CONSENSUS for your changes on the article talk page. Also please review WP:VANDALISM, WP:AGF, and WP:ASPERSIONS. If you want to make editing wikipedia a long term thing its probably best to be constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I-Ban warning

Hi Horse Eye. This edit been brought to my attention, wherein you are indirectly referring to CaradhrasAiguo. That violates your IBAN as you should well know. This is merely a warning, as I can see that it might have been unintentional. But if you violate you IBAN again, then the blocks will start. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I was under the impression that indirect comments on content or arguments raised by multiple editors was ok, in particular that participation in a talk page discussion in which the other person was only one of many participants was kosher as long as you didn't directly respond to them. Félix An's edit summary "please see reason and carefully read the linked pages by CaradhrasAiguo below” [6] made some level of indirect comment almost impossible to avoid. I’m not sure why you say "as you should well know,” this is my first and only IBAN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Direct or indirect, CA was the apparent target of your comment. You mention an undoing of adoring nanny's edit, and the only such revert is by CA [7]. Sorry for the "as you should well know", perhaps not my best turn of phrase, consider this your reminder then. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek:Félix An was the target of the comment, however their entire edit summary was invoking someone else’s argument, hence the very carefully worded "original edit summary” rather than “OP’s edit summary” or something similar. Adoring nanny is the author of the text which was reverted by both the user I have an Iban with and Félix An. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Are we good now? From my extremely careful reading of WP:IBAN (document interpretation is what I do for a living) there was no violation of any of the five points. There were no talk page edits, there was no replying to the other in a discussion, there was no reference to or comment on another editor, there was no undoing of each others edits, and there have been no thanks traded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, The policy says make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;. You indirectly referenced CA. Regardless, this was just a warning, I took no action, and we are good for now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek Thanks for the explanation. I indirectly referenced their edit summary not them, that to me didn't fit that criteria and if its that expansive the issue appears unavoidable. In the future how should I address a situation where an edit summary I would like to comment on is just an invocation of a user’s edit summary I can't have contact with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Invoking an IBanned user's edit summary is inherently interacting with them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Points of wikipedia philosophy aside what does this mean for me Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lieutenant of Melkor? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Well that is most unexpected, and I guess you are owed an apology. What that means for you I'm not quite sure to be honest, unless you have a specific question? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Yeah its wild... Especially coming a day after Geographyinitiative got indeffed (heres the really unexpected part... Geographyinitiative and CA always fought like cats and dogs over minutia but Geographyinitiative tried to unilaterally get Lieutenant of Melkor’s ban lifted User talk:Lieutenant of Melkor#Unblocking Request Attempt and adorned their talk page with really over the top praise [8]). I guess the question is whether the IBAN is moot as the other user wasn’t a legitimate user or whether I now have an IBAN with the whole CA/Lieutenant of Melkor/Guardian of the Ring ecosystem? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Seeing as they are blocked, its a bit of a moot point. Since they oughtn't be editing much in the near future (and we hope if they return they won't seek you out), you should be free and easy. Now, don't go about trying to meddle in the edits of that sock farm in general. I can't give an official pronouncement, as there really isn't guidance about IBAN's with socking users (its an unusual and weird occurrence). I think you'd need to ask at AN to get the thoughts of a variety of admins on how this will work going forward. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I have no intention of meddling in the edits of the sock farm in general or CA in particular, I’d like to note the weird Geographyinitiative/Lieutenant of Melkor interactions on the sockpuppet investigation but if I can’t due to the IBAN thats not a big deal (its just so bizarre though, CA is the one who got GI indeffed but GI hero worshiped Melkor who was unmasked as CA the day after GI was indeffed... Thats shakespearean). Sorry for wasting your time with unusual and weird occurrences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Horse, I think you should probably appeal the i-ban and see what happens. As a sock, CA was obviously acting in bad faith, and the sockmaster was indef blocked 6 and half years ago for harassment amd PAs! My hunch is that they'll be back before too long to cause trouble again, and you'll probably be a target. It be silly if you couldn't pursue an SPI in the future that mentions CA because of an i-ban! BilCat (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Socks

And who is [9] a sock of? Food obsessions points me in the intsf direction but it wasn't caught in the CU. CMD (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I’ve almost never come across an authentic editor who hits the ground running like that. CUs aren’t wonder weapons, I’d put it up for review at the intsf sockpuppet investigation. Perhaps the master is becoming more technically adept. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

2022 Winter Olympics

The article was fine before you reverted the changes made. I have followed the media during the Hong Kong protests and that's primarily when the calls to boycott have occurred. The Hong Kong protests received the most attention from the media, and as far as I can tell the Uyghur and Xinjiang papers played a lesser role. Those should be moved to controversy subtopic instead. Stonksboi (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)