User talk:NativeForeigner: Difference between revisions

This is NativeForeigner's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Note: Archives are below in template as well. New archives will appear in header.

Header ripped off from Anonymous Dissident (Thanks)

Please, be my guest, and whack me with a large trout if the situation demands it.

This user replies where he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

${\displaystyle \lnot \mathrm {TB} }$ Please refrain from using the dreaded Template:Talkback on this page multiple times in the same discussion (I'll have it watched after the first template)

Vote!

Formerly Redskunk (talk · contribs)

Archives

Index January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007-Early December 2009 Rest of December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July-December 2010 Year of 2011 Jan-July 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Hello, NativeForeigner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

at ArbComL. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68:. Can't find it. If you email me it I'll forward it to the list or try again and give me the title. It may have been caught or accidentally discarded, thanks for letting me know you sent it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. May I ask that you review my request at the ArbCom Talk page in question? It seems clear-cut to me what the circumstances here are, and I believe the behavior calls for immediate resolution. Thanks. Jusdafax 15:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE: I see that the admin in question, JzG/Guy, has been warned. I have been calling for this admin's inclusion in this case as an obviously involved party since the beginning. At the risk of stating the obvious, a statement is placed at the top of that same page, and I quote the final sentences: Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision. I frankly am astonished that an obvious campaign of naked intimidation by an involved administrator has been allowed to continue unabated until this warning, as the admin's harassment is plainly designed to have a chilling effect, as the warning notes. I ask that ArbCom block this admin and/or that his behavior in this case and elsewhere indeed be considered by the committee. Thanks again. Jusdafax 20:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE 2: Now an interaction ban has been emplaced, so at least I see some results. It's worth observing that JzG/Guy archived his notice within a few hours of the posting. I still feel strongly that further sanctions are justified against JzG/Guy. Jusdafax 20:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As is shown on the record here at least three ArbCom members voted to take on the GMO articles subject saying JzG/Guy was uninvolved in this case and doing "the Wiki's work" which exempted him from an ArbCom case. Given the above recounted events, I ask for an explanation.

A strong argument can be made that by specifically singling out administrator JzG as uninvolved despite his clearly being involved in several of the articles, his being a blocker of a Party to the case SageRad, JzG/Guy's being an involved closer of an RfC on the Monsanto legal cases Talk page, and an enabler of other editors engaged in dubious editing practices in GMO articles, that JzG/Guy felt invulnerable, leading to JzG/Guy's harassing behaviors of SageRad.

If doing the Wiki's work includes repeated comments to SageRad like "I know who you are," something is terribly wrong, in my view. In fairness, the ArbCom member doing the warning and the handing down of the recent Interaction Ban was one of the three ArbCom members giving JzG/Guy a free pass. But that iBan will expire at the end of the ArbCom case. These facts require a statement by JzG/Guy that he acknowledges his wrongdoing and pledges to change his ways, and without this expressed contrition, in my view, stronger corrective measures will be needed. Thanks for your consideration. Jusdafax 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The workshop is closed, so I'm only going to leave this comment. I believe it's been established at the case already that JzG was not considered involved at the time of SageRad's block or during RfC closes, which happened before the case opened. It wasn't until after the case opened that JzG really started editing within the topic outside an uninvolved perspective.[1]. The committee sure can discuss expected decorum for an admin trying to deal with things like vendettas, advocacy, etc. from an editor (examples of that at SageRad's block discussion and denied appeal).[2] However, I'm not going to comment on what comments were appropriate or not with the context of SageRad's history in mind because it was hard enough to document it in part at the case page much less here where this isn't quite the right forum. Seems to be one of the many areas that needs to be fleshed out in terms of evidence if one really wants to delve into the interaction. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also noted @Kingofaces43:. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: have posted the following on my Talk page, and this is an appropriate spot to place it as well, given the above and regarding your remarkable addition to the PD a few hours ago.

• As amendments go, this makes the PD worse, not better. No addition of Kingofaces, which is needed in all justice, and instead his suggestions to add Wuerzele are heeded, which continues the tit-for-tat pattern of intimidation of those asking hard questions. Sill no option to site ban the chief offender Jytdog. The given explanation re: JzG/Guy, one of the most patently abusive admins in my experience, is inadequate in the extreme. I have the distinct impression if not for my repeated demands for clarity, it would be even worse. Still no reply re: why JzG's non-addition as a party is actually used as a rationale for excusing him from sanctions when Arbitrators openly and repeatedly refused to do so in the first place, despite his obvious malfeasance and subsequent convenient disappearing act. Questions can be asked at the current ArbCom elections, and there are other ways to seek accountability in this process, and to have a broad community discussion regarding the glaring inequities on display here. This overall matter has been a cancer on Wikipedia for years, it has now reached Stage 4. Jusdafax 14:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In terms of Kingofaces, if someone can actually present evidence which shows policy violations, and not waving of hands "We don't like these edits", I'll propose a remedy to match. There is relatively little evidence submitted against him that doesn't rely on there being some sort of cabal, for which little evidence is presented. I suppose we could add JzG at this point in the case, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. It was an oversight. I thought Guerillero had (an error on my part, undoubtedly). I could present a siteban for Jytdog, but I wouldn't be in support and it almost certainly wouldn't pass. Also, Guerillero had included Wuerzele in his rough draft at a PD. Going back through evidence I agreed with him that there was adequate evidence. I'd also note that I spent several hours earlier today going through literally all of the diffs presented against Kingofaces. I saw the concern, hence went back through to make sure I wasn't making a grave error. My conclusion was that there is very little good evidence against him, as I stated previously. Perhaps @Guerillero: has an opinion on this, but I do not believe he saw the evidence for a sanction against Kingsofaces either. Even at this late stage you're more than welcome to outline which specific evidence you find damning and why. NativeForeigner ^Talk 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned some of the things you said may have been taken out of context a little and spurred some canvassing by Jusdafax on their talk page with their "call to action" language.[3] If it were just Jusdafax individually, I wouldn't consider that canvassing obviously, but that language and this is more of a purposeful attempt to coordinate editors. If you or other arbs think this crosses the line into hounding territory by trying to single out an editor in this fashion and without further evidence of policy violations as you mentioned above, I am open to an interaction ban. I'm not going to push that at this time though per my email to ArbCom a few weeks ago on periphery editors.

That being said, thank you for your analysis so far. In evidence presented so far, at worst they should show I've tried to respond to edit warring by getting people to follow WP:BRD and come to the talk page in my edit summaries. There is no great way to respond to edit warring though when others trying to edit war content in rather than reach consensus (pretty much everything cited against me should be an example of this), so I'm hoping the 1RR restriction resolves anything that would even slightly be considered a problem on my part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I vigorously reject Kingofaces charges of hounding, given the preceding statements. Nor is the charge of canvassing appropriate here. I have notified the case Parties concerned, and my actions are all aboveboard and legit, unlike the veiled threat in Kingofaces statement regarding "periphery editors." Chilling effect attempt, I'd call it. There was no need to say that other than to intimidate. Right there is a blockable offense. Jusdafax 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but trying to address the behavior issues I've outlined is not a chilling effect. The canvassing comment comes from trying to coordinate other editors against me (notifying all involved parties doesn't nullify that). I've said what I'm going to say on the matter though since I don't intend to spill over more of this onto NativeForeigner's page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you didn't have to mention emails. Your intention is clear. Right there. Jusdafax 16:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that mate. Never did a rangeblock before so I figured I'd post something on WP:ANI for someone else to deal with it. bibliomaniac15 08:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Saw the protection on my watchlist and had a bit of a double take. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely busy both in real life and with the GMO case, as well as the latest Corbett fiasco. I'll try to be as responsive as possible but do expect some lag time. Quite stressed all things considered. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In my world stress of any kind is relieved by Mozart though your mileage may vary. I agree that the seemingly endless editor involvement in discussing Corbett has been one of the biggest ongoing Wiki-timesinks of this decade. Thanks for your work, and stay frosty. Jusdafax 10:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your not supporting to loose the valuable admin service of Yngvadottir!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recall you were involved with my unblock that happened more than a year ago. After unblocked, I was put under some sanctions. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:DeltaQuad#Request_of_Removal_of_Sanctions and leaving your thoughts there? Regards, eurodyne (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking x-wiki habitual violator User:Labstore's sockpuppets! --Lanwi1 (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your efforts here, and that not everyone is in a rush to see a PD that you are unhappy with; we put weeks and months into presenting this case to the Arbs, so waiting a couple extra days for the PD is not a big deal. Normally we only hear from the disgruntled and most vocal (usually synonymous), so I wanted to present the other side. I'm also sorry to hear that there isn't more support for this work. It looks tedious, tiresome and quite thankless. It doesn't make sense that so much of the workload should fall on one or two people. Luckily, beer exists. petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what Petra says. I know you and Guillerimo have been unusually busy, and the GMO articles have actually calmed down so much that they seem like "normal" articles now :D. I hope my occasional requests for updates have not been construed as pressure to rush a decision. And yeah, luckily beer (and whisky) exist. Take care. Minor4th 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, i've waited over 3 years to bring much of this evidence to the Arbs. So, yeah: whiskey, beer, chocolate and other stuff. I'm full of patience ;) petrarchan47คุก 20:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now, from me. I actually think that the PD is very well written and conceived, so you had nothing to worry about. And now, I wish you a restful night's sleep! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing more, though. Looking at the PD, I wonder whether you might want to add something about Wuerzele. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See [4] NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it, and I do note that you may consider adding to it. I thought it better to say this here instead of at the PD talk page, in the interest of not inflaming things, but I might re-post there tomorrow if that would be better. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing as Tryptofish. The current PD covers the core issues/remedies quite well considering it's intended as minimum of what should happen, so thanks for the good work. I think mention of Wuerzele is the only major issue lacking from it in terms of dealing with persistent sniping of editors, but I'll comment on that at the PD talk page more formally this evening. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much appreciated if my questions and those of other editors were addressed on PD Talk. I tried pinging drafting Arbs but I'm wondering if the pings are working? Did you receive notice of my ping, NF? Atsme^📞📧 17:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've been reading it. Only so many hours in a day and I've been otherwise occupied for the last 24ish hours. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re [5] -- could you clarify what " it's very unlikely that we'll see anything" means in that context? NE Ent 11:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: Hopeully that makes more sense? Essentially if Djembayz goes before arbcom I'll recuse, but I don't think it's likely I'll be on arbcom if/when she goes before it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 11:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes total sense. NE Ent 12:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added material regarding Kingofaces in my section as requested. While we appear to disagree fundamentally on a number of points, I do thank you for the opportunity to respond, and for your calm demeanor.

I once again ask that Administrator JzG be added as a party to this case after his being given a warning and Interaction Ban with Party to the case SageRad. Jusdafax 18:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NativeForeigner. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Minor4th 21:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you, NF, have some explaining to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typtofish, please just stop following me around and talking about me - especially since you have banned me from your talk page so I can't even address what eureka moment you think you've had. Honestly, I don't think the very short block you received was enough to make an impression on you. Minor4th 21:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have both drafting Arbs' talk pages on my watchlist already. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]