User talk:Jbhunley/Archives/2015/January

Answer to question by ArtemisOfMars

@ArtemisOfMars: In answer to the question you asked here about opening a SPI. Yes you can open a SPI into those users. InstantSnapFeedback has already admitted to previously editing as Salivasnapshot. You can find the diff at BLPN just after I outlined why I thought you both had a COI. If you can prove that they are not Braunden Reed you can get the RichardBrandonReed account blocked for username impersonation. If you can link all three you might be able to have an admin take some kind of action against ISF. My guess is you will need to go through WP:OTRS to avoid WP:OUTING issues.

Before you open the SPI you need to read and understand what evidence is needed then collect the diffs. Without diffs a SOCK accusation is a personal attack. If you have off-wiki evidence you need to go through OTRS.With ISF the SOCKing seems to be a smaller issue to me than the possible impersonation issue. JBH (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH I will try to find these evidences and put them in my request. I found some relevant information on Facebook, is it something that I can use here on Wikipedia or not? What I found is a conversation about the band's article on Wikipedia between some people and it is dated the same day they started to "attack" Polaroid Kiss article on Wikipedia. Moreover, they only edited the same information: Steve Hewitt. I will work on this and submit what I found to your approval, but it's true that I have to be careful about WP:OUTING issues. I'm going to read the documentation you linked and see what I can do. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH What Artifice of Mars is referring to is a group on facebook called 'Ex Polaroid Kiss Members'. Feel free to read any conversations in there and contact the members if you have any questions about this issue, as I can assure you that any screenshots Artifice of Mars sends to Wikipedia will be heavily edited.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@InstantSnapFeedback: I looked at that group when the accusations came up at BLPN it is a closed group so I have no idea of its contents. I do not use Facebook much and while I edit under my own name I am not comfortable exposing of-wiki accounts with a view, even if small, into my real life while I am trying to work on an ongoing dispute so I did not join to look. Since the URL at BLPN links to your actual identity I will find the edit and have the people at WP:OVERSITE purge that link. JBH (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH Thank you. I appreciate that.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@InstantSnapFeedback: After an email conversation with OVERSIGHT they determined that since the group was closed/private and required permission to view that it was not something that they could purge. Sorry, I thought it was within their guidelines but I was wrong. JBH (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: No worries. I'm not worried that Artifice of Mars is viewing the group. Nevertheless, I appreciate your efforts.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@ArtemisOfMars: Do not put any off-wiki information or other's personal information on Wikipedia. They take privacy here very seriously. If you have relevant information, and in this case the only thing that I think would be relevant is proof that the RichardBrandonReed account is being used by someone other than Richard Brandon Reed, you need to contact the WMF offline either via email or via OTRS. They will tell you how to proceed. I am not comfortable dealing with personally identifiable information, nor do I want to be in the position of being an advocate for either of you. I see many issues related to Polaroid Kiss that have been going on for a long time. As I work on this clean up I hope to be able to maintain a working relationship with each of you but I will and can only make my editorial decisions based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I can not even, in most circumstances, "do what is right" if it is in violation of policy. JBH (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For both of you, since we seem to be communicating ok here, please allow me to make a comment on the SPIs. Both Wiki-culture in general, and I in particular, tend to be very forgiving of past transgressions on-wiki. The policy here is that blocks are preventative not punitive. We have editors here who have made major missteps and are still editing here. If you have been SOCKing admit to it, list all of your previous accounts on your user page and promise not to do it again (and don't). COI and even limited impersonation can be handled all that is needed is to admit it, say "sorry I did not understand the policies - I do now and I will follow them from now on". It is best, in my opinion, to ask an admin to block the old accounts and I would say it is required for an impersonation account. After that you are an editor in good standing and you will have gained credibility with the community because you backed away from the cliff.

ArtemisOfMars, I know you deny being a SOCK, that is what SPI is for. If they clear you I will apologize, that is why I did not accuse you and just let the accusation hang. InstantSnapFeedback when I asked if you edited as Salivasnapshot you said yes, that got you a lot of respect in my book so I will just ask; Did you edit under RichardBrandonReed?

@JBH No, I did not edit under RichardBrandonReed InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@InstantSnapFeedback: OK, ArtemisOfMars will likely want to start a SPI or at least block it as a deceptive username. I will still advise them on what they need to do but as long as neither of those accounts are editing I have no reason to start one on my own initiative. JBH (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Polaroid Kiss mess be much easier with the two of you working with me than with than having out-of-policy editors working against me. So neither of you are taken aback I will tell you the next thing I am going to do is nominate Polaroid Kiss for deletion at AfD. It was my opinion from my first edit at BLPN that it was non-notable. I can not PROD it until the page protection expires but I will let you see the deletion proposal so you have a few more days to look for viable sources to improve the article. I spent a lot of time looking for good sources because I know this article means a lot to you and others but the sources just are not there. JBH (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH So the only way to solve this is to delete the article? I didn't know that Wikipedia was a dictatorship. Sorry, but this band exists for many years now. I'm sure this InstantSnapFeedback will open a bottle of Champagne to celebrate this. That's exactly what he wants to do from the beginning. Jealousy and frustration may lead some musicians to do silly things. Polaroid Kiss is a successful band, with a bright future, ISF is nothing. Great, you say you're neutral but from the very beginning you only believe what he says and not what I say. He has edited the article under several aliases or user names as you call them here and tells lies. I have the truth on my side, and if you delete the article, I, or anyone who knows the band, will write it back. Anyway, do what you want, I don't care anymore. If you don't believe the official websites (yeah, ISF is a more reliable source than a record company with a good reputation of course! He is God, isn't he?), so clean all articles written on Wikipedia because many of them use official information as sources. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisOfMars: I am sorry you believe that but I am yet again amazed how many otherwise intelligent adults think neutral means "the way I want it". You have been told many, many times what it takes to support a Wikipedia article. This is not a Facebook page or a public relations outlet it is an encyclopedia and to date Polaroid Kiss has done nothing that has been reported by independent third party sources to merit inclusion here. It has been managed here for years by a user who placed their name in other artists articles by marking the edits minor so they would not show up in people's watch lists. They knew that other editors would object to the insertion, else why the deceptive editing practice.

The Polaroid Kiss article languished in obscurity until you brought it to BLPN because InstantSnapFeedback wanted to remove unsourced BLP content. The way they went about is was very wrong but what they asked was correct. Have you read all those blue links to policies? I do not type all that extra crap because I like the color blue, I do it so you can easily get to the information - so you can read it and understand it.

Let me be very very clear about something. With statements like "and if you delete the article, I, or anyone who knows the band, will write it back." and "Can we control the contributions of different users before they appear... " from your French Wikipedia account you brought up here at SPI you are setting yourself up for a WP:BLOCK or ultimately even a WP:BAN. That means that any edit you, as a person, under any account name or IP address make can be deleted by any editor whether it is a good edit or not. That would be a sad outcome and the way to avoid it is to work with the community not disrupt it. At WP:AFD you can argue why my position it should be deleted is wrong. I spent several hours looking for good sources to support the article and I am convinced they simply are not there. Make sure you base your arguments on policy and reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship it works on consensus. If the consensus is to keep the article then we keep the article no matter what I think. JBH (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH What amazes me the most is that Wikipedia DO NOT accept OFFICIAL information and ask for third party sources. It's not "the way I want it", it's the way it "should be because it is the truth". That's totally insane because what you call "third party" in this present issue are newspapers and/or magazines... who contact the band's official websites to write their articles! So when it's official for a band, it's not the truth for Wikipedia? So when U2 (let's talk about them) say on their official website they will be on tour this year, you don't believe it and wait for NME to confirm it? Because, of course, U2 official website is not a reliable source for almighty Wikipedia. What kind of madness is this?

What I wrote on this article is official, so the truth. It's written everywhere on the official websites of the band.

Now you're threatening me? Telling me that I will be blocked or banned for telling the truth? That's good, do what you want.

And about the other user who placed the names of band members on their articles, nobody said anything about that. The edits are visible and can be read on the clean version of the article. Those who know the artists and the band knew that the info were right that's why they didn't edit it.

Oh, and the day, in a very very near future, Polaroid Kiss will become a huge band, you will remember all these "conversations" and see that I was right and you were manipulated by ISF and your "rules".

Now, ban me, block me, I don't care. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisOfMars: First, I never threatened you please strike that claim. I informed you of potential conciquences of your attitude. To be perfectly clear, I am not an Admin. I have no power or authority greater than any other editor. I do however have, I believe, a good grasp of the rules and guidelines for editing Wikipedia and the principals they are based on. You, obviously are more concerned with the band than the encyclopedia. That is not the way to edit here.

If you think "... the day, in a very very near future, Polaroid Kiss will become a huge band, you will remember all these "conversations" and see that I was right and you were manipulated by ISF and your "rules"." you simply have not been listening. If that happened there would good sources and I would hapily help write the article.

The policies of Wikipedia are as they are being indignant about them serves no purpose. If you are indeed not a COI editor try taking all that passion you have and work to improve some more established bands like Apoptygma Berzerk, VNV Nation, Blutengel, Covenant, Funker Vogt or Icon of Coil until Polaroid Kiss "makes it big". Those are all established bands, in the same genre and, in my opinion, are also quite good. JBH (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: After not getting their way with the Polaroid Kiss page, Artifice of Mars has now decided to focus their energies into making malicious edits to the Sneaker Pimps page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ArtemisOfMarsInstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@InstantSnapFeedback: Thank you. I watchlisted the page (and will probably end up watching all pages where Polaroid Kiss is mentioned) but I want to see the outcome of the SPI on AOM as well as the AfD on Polaroid Kiss before I do anything to expand this drama. There is always a chance I am wrong about one or both and the culture here at Wikipedia requires that I Assume the good faith of other editors to a much greater extent than I would in the real world. JBH (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I understand. I know that due process has to be followed, and I appreciate your even-handedness.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

Sneaker Pimps article

Hello,

I'm afraid there have been a series of edits to this article as runoff from the Polaroid Kiss drama. ArtemisofMars edited out information regarding a band member that has never before been disputed (I am guessing it is because ArtemisofMars [whether as Brandun Reed/a proxy of Brandun Reed/other current member of Polaroid Kiss] is upset that they were told they needed more reliable sources to back up claims made on their Wiki page.

I edited back the information, and cited two references, which ArtemisofMars has again deleted and claimed photographs are not reliable sources, also claimed it was self-promotion (the reference website is not run by any member of the band and certainly no one is using it as self-promotion, so that is another made up claim on the part of ArtemisofMars). It would appear they would be quite reliable as they show this band member on stage with the other band members during a concert. It is not the only webpage with photos from that tour, but one that did have three different sources of photographs so it seemed strongest to cite.

I am guessing this has become more of a headache than anything for you, and the only reason I am bringing these edits to your attention is because it seems clearly "punitive" and "revenge-minded" on the part of ArtemisofMars. Basically: a user having a hissy fit over what has happened on their page and taking it out on another.

Thank you for your time.

• Edited to add*

It makes perfect sense that the Sneaker Pimps have a Wikipedia page as they have sold hundreds of thousands of records, had three major label releases, and have toured the world extensively. Polaroid Kiss still has yet to release a "debut" album, has never been signed to a major label, and have not played a live gig in nearly a decade. Any edits made by Polaroid Kiss Crusaders to the Sneaker Pimps Wikipedia page are questionable in motive at the very least.

Demeritus (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Demeritus (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have one question: how many user accounts does this person have? It is absolutely amazing! It could be a good thing to investigate on them quickly.

Here is a list of all of them:

• User:RichardBrandonReed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardBrandonReed
• User:Salivasnapshot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Salivasnapshot
• User:InstantSnapFeedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/InstantSnapFeedback
• User:Furious Balancing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Furious_Balancing
• User:Demeritus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Demeritus

They only edited Polaroid Kiss article or Sneaker Pimps article, nothing more.

I'm editing non reliable information because none of the sources are valid. I'm just following the rules. Pickering was a co-lyricist, he never was a member of the band and if he appears on some pictures, on stage with the band, it does not mean he is a band member as nothing has been clearly confirmed by a reliable source.

Note that I'm signing under my user name, the real one, the only one...ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisOfMars: Yes, I think, in particular the two accounts editing in support of each other calls for a SPI. I noticed Furious Balancing yesterday and will take a look at Demetrius. It is possible for you to open an SPI on your own though. Just go to WP:SPI. If you do please let me know, it will save me some work and I will add anything I find that you missed. JBH (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH For your info, I have opened a SPI. I hope I put the right infos on the right place. Here is the link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Demeritus. Thanks for your help in amending this form. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisOfMars: I added evidence to the SPI you opened as I promised. Did you follow the directions at SPI for creating a case? It does not show up in the list of SPI cases on the main page and does not have all of the formatting I usually see in a properly created SPI. Try contacting one of the clerks (see who edited recently) listed on the main SPI page so they can correct it. JBH (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I will be upfront and say last year, during a time when Brandun Reed had been proven a liar and con man, and had three musicians publicly cut ties with him within the space of a month, I edited the Polaroid Kiss page under RichardBrandonReed. I used that name because he had denied that was his full name at the time. But after that bit of childishness I never did any other edits, and created a new user name as I do not wish to post as RichardBrandonReed, as well as having no clue what the password for that account is anymore. The edit I made to the Sneaker Pimps page included references, and reinstating what had already been written and known to be true for years - undisturbed until ArtemisofMars decided to make changes. I am none of the other users included in the SPI and investigation will prove that. I have changed nothing on the Polaroid Kiss page during this, nor care to, as I believe they are and will continue to be quite obscure, even if their years-delayed album ever does manage to be released. But I do believe editing out a proven and known member of a still popular band, and changing a Wikipedia page that has had correct information on it for years out of malice, to be against Wikipedia guidelines. It would be better to delete the Sneaker Pimps Wikipedia altogether, rather than allowed it to remain butchered by ArtemisofMars, as the information listed on the Wikipedia page can be, and is easily found elsewhere online and in print. Demeritus

@Demeritus: Best practice would be to note that you previously edited under another account on your user page. In this case you might say you edited as RichardBrandonReed and changed because it was in violation of username policy. I will add a link to your comment at SPI. Please read WP:COI about conflict of interest and WP:SOCK about using multiple accounts and coordinating with other users off-wiki. WP:CANVASS is probably a good read as well. JBH (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: This is getting really quite pathetic now and I apologise for the demands upon your time over such a trivial issue.

However, I would like to add to the conversation by saying this: I welcome a SPI. As I have said before, I previously edited under Salivasnapshot, but have not done so since I forgot the password. I have not, and do not, edit as or for anyone else. For three accounts to be using mobile devices I would have thought is quite normal in this day and age. As for Drameu and Artifice of Mars, I am quite certain that a SPI into them will reveal that Artifice has been editing via at least two IP addresses, at least one of which is shared by Drameu.

I agree with what @Demeritus: has to say, apart from their suggestion that the Sneaker Pimps entry be deleted. Why should a name band suffer because of a figurative storm in a teacup.

&, while we're on the subject of tea, this has become quite hysterical. I suggest everyone has a cup of Camille tea and works on their collective Tanne to relax.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@Jbhunley: Thanks for your help on the SPI. I contacted one of the admin (Mike V) to ask them to check what I did wrong and edit it so the request will appear on the main page. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

From the Euromaidan Talk page

Collapsing cut/paste

Too Much Advocacy and Too Little Neutral Point of View The Euromaidan article is extremely problematic. It fails to conform to the three basic article policies: (1) no original research, (2) neutral point of view, and (3) verifiability. The article covers a highly politicized issue on which there are several sides of the story, and none of the sides appear to comport well with verifiable facts. Recently I deleted two paragraphs that contained a narrative that advocates just one of the several non-factual versions of this issue. The text in question was completely unsupported by references. I also made two minor editorial corrections where I could see that point of view could be easily removed by simple word changes. For instance, the original text said "Many protesters joined because of the violent dispersal of protesters..." Calling the police action violent is pejorative and reflects one side of the story. Another side would say that the police were responding to a provocation and were seeking to restore law and order. I thought that a POV-neutral way of describing the incident would be to use the term "forceful dispersal" instead of violent dispersal. Similarly, a sentence beginning with "Escalating violence from government forces..." seemed to reflect the same point of view that is in contention. For the sake of neutrality, I changed that to "Escalating use of physical control by government forces..." In both cases, my edits maintained the undisputed description of the events, but without the pejorative words used originally. And, finally, in a later section the narrative discusses an action of the parliament. It said that the body "allegedly impeached the president." That suggests that there has been no authoritative determination made about whether the president was really impeached or not. But this is an instance where there is irrefutable evidence that the president was not impeached. I modified the text accordingly, and provided references to reliable sources. After having done all that, Volunteer Marek, citing "POV pushing, weasel-ing and removal of relevant text," undid all of my editorial corrections. In my opinion this article in its present state is an affront to the facts of the matter. It is a narrative of advocacy. The article needs to be more factual and less partisan. One of the challenges in achieving that is the unfortunate amount of media bias that has manifested in covering the topic. There are vast differences in media storylines depending upon which country's media is doing the reporting. This mainstream bias means that simply citing media reports will not establish something as factual. The media reports themselves would have to be fact checked before they could be relied upon. But if there is some reasonable way to move toward fixing the present article's problems, I'd be glad to help in a modest way. (Although, I must say that I have no appetite for going back and forth with individuals like Volunteer Marek who apparently wish to preserve a distorted description of the issue.) But are there others who might be motivated to join in to remove POV rhetoric from this article? If not, perhaps Wikipedia readers would be better served if this article were deleted entirely. Comments please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikva2009 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Following the above Talk post of January 14, and having heard nothing in response to my invitation for comments on the policy violations after more than a week, it seemed to me that there was no controversy over the suggested deletion. Subsequently, I posted a notice for deletion. Then at 03:41, 23 January 2015‎ Jbhunley deleted my proposed deletion saying "No, Just no. This is an improper use of PROD." Jbhunley did not address the policy violations that I asserted. I also received a notice from Jbhunley that said, "The template you used is for non-controversial deletions only. I have removed it from the Euromaidan article. This is a reminder that Euromaidan is subject to the discretionary sanctions you were previously notified of. JBH (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)" Can someone tell me whether Jbhunldy is also subject to discretionary sanctions for deleting a legitimate deletion notice? Tikva2009 (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009 BoldItalic Signature and timestampLinkEmbedded file AdvancedSpecial charactersHelpCite == Too Much Advocacy and Too Little Neutral Point of View == The Euromaidan article is extremely problematic. It fails to conform to the three basic article policies: (1) no original research, (2) neutral point of view, and (3) verifiability. The article covers a highly politicized issue on which there are several sides of the story, and none of the sides appear to comport well with verifiable facts. Recently I deleted two paragraphs that contained a narrative that advocates just one of the several non-factual versions of this issue. The text in question was completely unsupported by references. I also made two minor editorial corrections where I could see that point of view could be easily removed by simple word changes. For instance, the original text said "Many protesters joined because of the violent dispersal of protesters..." Calling the police action violent is pejorative and reflects one side of the story. Another side would say that the police were responding to a provocation and were seeking to restore law and order. I thought that a POV-neutral way of describing the incident would be to use the term "forceful dispersal" instead of violent dispersal. Similarly, a sentence beginning with "Escalating violence from government forces..." seemed to reflect the same point of view that is in contention. For the sake of neutrality, I changed that to "Escalating use of physical control by government forces..." In both cases, my edits maintained the undisputed description of the events, but without the pejorative words used originally. And, finally, in a later section the narrative discusses an action of the parliament. It said that the body "allegedly impeached the president." That suggests that there has been no authoritative determination made about whether the president was really impeached or not. But this is an instance where there is irrefutable evidence that the president was not impeached. I modified the text accordingly, and provided references to reliable sources. After having done all that, Volunteer Marek, citing "POV pushing, weasel-ing and removal of relevant text," undid all of my editorial corrections. In my opinion this article in its present state is an affront to the facts of the matter. It is a narrative of advocacy. The article needs to be more factual and less partisan. One of the challenges in achieving that is the unfortunate amount of media bias that has manifested in covering the topic. There are vast differences in media storylines depending upon which country's media is doing the reporting. This mainstream bias means that simply citing media reports will not establish something as factual. The media reports themselves would have to be fact checked before they could be relied upon. But if there is some reasonable way to move toward fixing the present article's problems, I'd be glad to help in a modest way. (Although, I must say that I have no appetite for going back and forth with individuals like Volunteer Marek who apparently wish to preserve a distorted description of the issue.) But are there others who might be motivated to join in to remove POV rhetoric from this article? If not, perhaps Wikipedia readers would be better served if this article were deleted entirely. Comments please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikva2009 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Following the above Talk post of January 14, and having heard nothing in response to my invitation for comments on the policy violations after more than a week, it seemed to me that there was no controversy over the suggested deletion. Subsequently, I posted a notice for deletion. Then at 03:41, 23 January 2015‎ Jbhunley deleted my proposed deletion saying "No, Just no. This is an improper use of PROD." Jbhunley did not address the policy violations that I asserted. I also received a notice from Jbhunley that said, "The template you used is for non-controversial deletions only. I have removed it from the Euromaidan article. This is a reminder that Euromaidan is subject to the discretionary sanctions you were previously notified of. JBH (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)" Can someone tell me whether Jbhunldy is also subject to discretionary sanctions for deleting a legitimate deletion notice? Tikva2009 (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

Jbhunley, please explain yourself. Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing more cut/paste

tikva2009 – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: Tikva2009 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Cite your sources: Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes) Preview of edit summary: (→‎Too Much Advocacy and Too Little Neutral Point of View) This is a minor edit Watch this page By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.

@Tikva2009: Jbhunley was completely correct in removing the prod notice. You, however, are close to being sanctioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tikva2009: I explained why I removed the template on your talk page. I also addressed the issue a bit later on the article talk page [1]. There I gave you some advice and offered to help you if you had specific diffs that you were concerned with. Your copy/paste tantrum here was rude and uncalled for. The only purpose served was to irritate someone who offered you help. Shame on you.

To answer your question about the sanctions; Yes I, with my whole 1 edit in the area, am subject to the same discretionary sanctions. Being subject to sanctions and being sanctioned are two very different things. Again, I strongly suggest that you become familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before editing in such a controversial area and that you approach editing in a collaborative manner. If you do this you will make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia and help shape the articles you work on. If you do not your input and point of view will be lost to us and no one will ever know the point of view you wish to document. JBH (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley: Thank you for the conciliatory note that you posted to my Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tikva2009#Follow-up). You are correct that I am unfamiliar with the process of making diffs. But I will look into the link that you provided. Certainly yesterday I had no intention of doing anything that would be perceived as being rude. So now we are left with the disposition of the two articles that I believe presently serve to seriously mislead the readers. They also appear to violate the basic article policies. I'm talking about the Euromaidan and Alexander Litvinenko articles. I tried and failed at inviting discourse and working toward a consensus. Are you willing to join in an effort rectify the currently misleading state of those articles? If so, perhaps you can suggest a reasonable and manageable way in which we may proceed. Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: OK, based on your earlier edits it looks like you want to add some Russian perspective. In principal that is great. I think we need a wider perspective on contensious issues. In practice I think you might find it difficult to do on those two articles in particular. I will explain why later on. First let me tell you how to format text on a talk page:


When talking about a user link their account like this: [[User:Jbhunley|JBH]]
If you want to address them you can use: {{ping|Jbhunley}} or {{reply to|Jbhunley}}
When you are replying to someone indent one level greater than the text you are replying to using : like this -

 First comment
 :Reply
 ::Next Reply
 :::Third Reply

To link a WikiPage enclose it in double brackets; [[Alexander Litvenenko]]

To make a diff get its URL from the article history or a user's contribution page and enclose it in single brackets you can add optional text after the URL and before the closing bracket.

My first edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabic_language&diff=prev&oldid=415175260]

My [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabic_language&diff=prev&oldid=415175260 first] edit

<p>Starts a paragraph. End a paragraph with </p><p>And continue writing another until you end it with</p>

And the last thing you should do is sign your comment with: ~~~~


The above text will look like this on the talk page:

When talking about a user link their account like this: JBH If you want to address them you can use: @Jbhunley: or @Jbhunley: When you are replying to someone indent one level greater than the text you are replying to using : like this -

First comment

Reply

Next Reply

Third Reply

To link a WikiPage enclose it in double brackets; Alexander Litvinenko To make a diff get its URL from the article history or a user's contribution page and enclose it in single brackets you can add optional text after the URL and before the closing bracket. My first edit [2] My first edit

Starts a paragraph. End a paragraph with

And continue writing another until you end it with

And the last thing you should do is sign your comment with: JBH (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is just a quick and dirty way to get you up to speed on editing on talk pages. You can get more information at Simplest Diff Guide, Talk Page Guidelines| and Wiki Markup. If what I said here contradicts anything those documents say follow them not me.

Earlier I said it would be hard to bring the Russian perspective to these articles, essentially it comes down to reliable sources. Both articles reflect pretty well what the non-Russian media and much of the English language Russian media, that meet Wikipedia's RS criteria, has to say. Russian media has two big problems, 1) it is in Russian and very few Wikipedians speak Russian, this is not insurmountable but it makes things harder. 2) English language Russian media is perceived in the West as at best self-censoring and at worst a propaganda organ of the state, particularly when they are reporting on issues dear to the state or very powerful people. I am not saying Western media is neither of these things just that they are not perceived that way by most writers.

The next issue is both of these articles deal with issues that are the subject of massive propaganda and disinformation campaigns by both Western and Russian intelligence services. In the case of Alexander Litvinenko my opinion is that he was running a disinformation campaign on his own behalf and/or on the behalf of a third party as well. (But that would never go into the article that is what WP:OR is.) So the facts have been purposely muddled by several parties who are extremely good at creating 'halls of mirrors'. The truth of these matters will not be known for many years, if ever. All we can do is report what good sources say.

This brings be to the last issue. You need to carefully read Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources, Neutral Point of View and Original Research. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Original Research (OR), in particular, do not mean what you think they mean. Here is a quick overview but please read the policies for your self.

• Reliable sources must, with few exceptions, be published by a third party with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, it is best that they be secondary sources. Books like The Phony Litvinenko Murder, like you discussed with NeilN, which are self published or published by a person who has no real credentials or widely recognized expertise are not acceptable and claims referenced to them should either be backed up by a better source or removed.
• Original research means that we can not analyze the information in sources and draw our on conclusions or theories based on that information. Nor can we combine sources to draw a conclusion neither expresses on its own. The classic example is if Source 1 says A implies B and Source 2 says B implies C we can not then say in the article A implies C.
• A neutral point of view means that we faithfully report what reliable sources say about a subject. It does not mean we must use neutral terminology if the reliable sources do not. For instance if the reliable sources say a reaction was violent we say violent not forceful. It is possible to relate what a specific source says about an event by directly quoting them however the opinion must be both Notable and not UNDUE.

I hope this helps some. If you would like to go over to the Litbinenko page and address specific issues where you have concerns I would be happy to participate. However the article looks pretty good and seems to reflect that is available in the open sources so I can not support major changes in content or tone without good sources to back it up. The biggest issue I see is the section on his conversion to Islam is completely unsourced so it might need to go if some sources can not be found. JBH (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Again, I appreciate the time you've taken to offer explanations. I'd be glad to review the Litvinenko article with you.

But let's start with the Euromaidan one since it is where our conversation started. Taken as a whole, this article reflects a point of view that is controversial. My intent was not to interject a Russian point of view, but in a modest way to begin reforming the article so it would be point-of-view neutral.

To start, I reviewed the Wikipedia policies on point of view and the other basic article policies. I found two paragraphs at the beginning of the Euromaidan article that are a narrative on events. They reflect a particular point of view. And the narrative contains no references to reliable sources.

This looked to me like an obvious no-no on several counts that I referenced. When I deleted the text, I commented: "Deleted material contains no footnoted references and does not conform to article policies: No Original Research; Neutral Point of View: and Verifiability. Same is true of much of remainder of this article -- but this is a start at remediation." Then I made word substitutions where the word "violence" was used, and if taken in the context of the whole article, is expressive of a point of view.

And finally, I addressed another point-of-view issue along with a factual inaccuracy. [3] In making that change I explained, "Former text asserted Yanukovych impeachment was merely alleged, whereas it has been factually established that he was not impeached."

In response to my effort to improve the article and to bring it into conformity with the basic article guidelines, Volunteer Marek deleted my editing, commenting, "undo POV pushing, weasel-ing and removal of relevant text."

You've asserted that Wikipedia uses a collaborative approach. But there was no overture toward collaboration in his response. It was brash and insulting.

After Volunteer Marek's deletion, I posted on the Talk page an extensive explanation for the editing I did, and invited comments. I was looking for collaboration. After more than a week there was no response. I then read the Wikipedia remedy for dealing with unreliable content and came across the procedure for posting an intent to delete the article.[4] Since my Talk page suggestion for deletion received no objection, this seemed like an appropriate next step. My understanding was that this would give other editors a week to "address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page."

However, you almost instantly responded to my notice saying "No, Just no. This is an improper use of PROD." That didn't sound very collaborative to me. In your more recent and more detailed comments to me you did provide some explanations that I'll now address.

On the word substitutions I attempted to make, you said, "we faithfully report what reliable sources say about a subject. It does not mean we must use neutral terminology if the reliable sources do not. For instance if the reliable sources say a reaction was violent we say violent not forceful."

That makes perfect sense to me if the article was quoting the source verbatim. But this was a characterization of what the source said. Calling the police action "violent" fits into the slanted point of view that permeates the Euromaidan article. It speaks to the alleged intent of the police, not just to their actions of record. And there is not unanimity about their intent.

First of all you should consider Webster's says "violent" means "marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity." And so, if someone believed that my change from "violent" to "forceful" was weakening the report of what actually happened, a collaborative overture could have led to changing "forceful" to "extremely forceful." That would have preserved the neutral point of view. Reverting to "violent" is a disservice to any reader seeking to understand the truth.

And, by the way, although the "violent" word is not part of a quote, it is part of the phase "violent dispersal of protesters on 30 November" contained in the article that is hot linked to another article.[ //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan#30_November_attack_on_protesters] The section of that article that refers to the November 30 incident does not use the word "violent."

The sentence in which the instant phrase is used is footnoted to an article on euronews.com.[ //www.euronews.com/2013/12/13/ukrainian-opposition-uses-polls-to-bolster-cause/] The lead of that article says, "The main reason Ukrainians massed in Kyiv’s Independence Square, was the violent police dispersal of a peaceful pro-EU demo and brutal beatings handed out on November 30." But it does not substantiate that assertion. So it is apparently a primary source for the comment.

Given all that, I don't see how your justification for sticking with the word "violent" holds water.

And finally there is that matter of the impeachment of Yanukovych. You quibbled with the source that I cited. But did you look for others, or even ask me to cite others? Where is there a spirit of collaboration here?

Just for the record here is another source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.[5] I realize that source is a voice of the United States Government, and that you have with regard to media under Russian state control explained that "English language Russian media is perceived in the West as at best self-censoring and at worst a propaganda organ of the state."

Do you also extend that scrutiny to RFE/RL? If so, would you similarly reject citations to content in the Congressional Record, for instance, as referencing an unreliable source?

Previous responses from you and NeilN have included a lot of Wikipedia jargon and have referred me to a lot of Wikipedia documentation. While I have been grateful for the references, and have reviewed them, I do not aspire to achieve the level of proficiency that you and NeilN possess about the intricacies of Wikipedia. Quite frankly, after all the flack I've gotten from making an honest attempt to correct a very bad situation with the two articles under discussion, I don't think I'll be doing any article editing anytime soon. And to have been threatened with "sanctions," whatever they are, is beyond the pale.

That said, I remain open to working with you in identifying problem points and suggesting solutions. But I think that your recent comments to me, and this response to you, and any future interaction that may ensue should be carried on the Talk pages of the respective articles. It would contribute to an understanding of the issues by others. I don't want to botch moving the material. If you are in accord with my thinking that the Talk pages are a better place for collaborative discussion, could you take care of moving all this? Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: You seem to have gotten caught in the Wikipedia grist mill. There is a pattern that editors with a conflict of interest or an extreme point of view follow. Please understand that I am not accusing you of being one of those. They often try to use single questionable sources to change high impact articles in controvercial topic areas. They also tend to dump lots of unformatted text on talk pages. Check out the anti-Turk guy over on NeilN's talk page. They also often try to delete articles through abuse of process.

It seems that, apairently through no falt of your own, you ticked those boxes simply through being unfamiliar with processes here and other editors reacted based on that perception. I am very sorry about that.

What you need to remember is that Wikipedia has developed a culture and policies over the years to create a serviceable encyclopedia while still upholding the principal that "anyone can edit". This means that editors here are very wary of particular behaviors that have lead to disruption in the past and tend to be rather short when responding to those behaviors. Not an ideal situation but there is not much to be done about it other than try to remember to look out for the exceptions.

On to the Euromaiden article - First, I actually have no opinion yet on the use of the word violent in that context. I was not the person who reverted it, if it was reverted. I just saw it while looking through your contributions and used it as an example. Before making changes to the article I need to read it through carefully and also read through some of the archives (links are on the right of the talk page). I would strongly suggest you do the same. Likely many of the issues you see have been discussed in the archives and it is best to know where the land mines are.

Speaking of - here is at least one discussion in the archives on police violence. Let us carry on over at the article talk page as you suggested. It is likely we will disagree on much but maybe, if there is an ongoing conversation, some of the other article contributors will join in. JBH (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhuntley Have you had a chance to read carefully through the article and archives? And how can we move this conversation to the article's talk page? Tikva2009 (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

@Tikva2009: Yes. See the Euromaidan talk page. JBH (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

@Tikva2009: I posted the Discretionary Sanctions notice to my talk page so people know I am aware of the ArbCom sanctions in the area we will be working in. (Before an admin can block a person under discretionary sanctions they are supposed to have been officially notified. Since you have already been notified and I am aware of the sanctions it is just a bureaucratic/procedural thing but fair is fair.) JBH (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)