User talk:Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2020/September

W. Ian Lipkin

Hi, could i trouble you to take a look at this page - specifically from the SARS-CoV-2 section onward? The subject, a celebrity scientist, has deep ties to the CCP and controversial views about the CCP's transparency, Gain-of-Function experiments, facemasks, and the origins of the pandemic. Attempts to include referenced details of these views, including direct quotes from the subject, are repeatedly wiped by a user called Thucydides411. It's up now as of writing but will likely be wiped again when he gets out of bed. It would be great to have some alternative eyes on this. Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Before the Bang: Please read WP:CANVAS, a policy that your above post violates. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Repeated feuding with CaradhrasAiguo, including following each other to articles to revert the other, and near constant bickering and templating and insults and harrasment. Blocking both editors for 2 weeks to prevent further disruption of other editors' work.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I’m sorry, it wasn’t my intent to harass CA and I thought I was staying within the lines so to speak. Obviously that wasn’t the case and I need to reconsider how I interact with this editor if I even interact with them at all. The feuding has also not exactly been constant, its been maybe once or twice a week but it has gone on for way too long. I definitely accept the validity of the block (I have no reason to doubt that Floquenbeam made the right call), the only thing I want to ask about is the length. Two weeks seems excessive, this is my first block and I’m not causing any disruption to any user other than CA and that disruption I regret causing and it won’t happen again. Any guidance or advice for how to avoid this situation in the future would also be appreciated, thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocking per discussion below, with an I-ban with CA until 9 July 2020 (and a warning to be careful not to resume feud after that) Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: What do you think about dropping the block to three days for both, and instead throwing in a 2-way WP:IBAN? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: First, I'm not precious about my blocks. If you think it's too harsh, feel free to modify, even if I disagree below. No need to go to AN/ANI, really, whatever you think best. Second, since you're asking my opinion, my inclination is that it needs to be long enough to actually be an inconvenience, rather than be something easily removed with an "oh, sorry". Not as a punishment, but as a deterrent. They've been doing this for, what, months? And been told several times to knock it off, because it was making everyone else miserable too. They did not care. Third, since (crazily) admins can block someone indef, but can't unilaterally impose an iban, if you want to go with the "shorten plus iban" route, your suggestion will need careful management. An iban can be imposed as an unblock condition, but it only works here if it's two-way, so I think you'd need to make sure both agreed to it as a condition for an unblock if you want to go that route. Finally, you could get a community iban at AN/ANI, but I am not a fan of that venue. If you're less jaded about it than I am, that's certainly a justifiable place to get a less complicated iban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a point of order... Both of us modified our behavior following your informal warning in April and have had hardly any contact since (at least compared to how much we had before). I don’t think its fair to say we didn’t care. I would be amenable to an iban, I’ve never had this sort of issue with another editor and don’t intend to have it with another. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek and Floquenbeam: Both editors work on a wide breadth of China & Taiwan related articles, including the heavily-edited articles with disputes (e.g. Xinjiang re-education camps, Anti-Chinese sentiment, COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China), and they independently contribute productively to this body of articles. An IBAN would be a difficult and unproductive use of time to enforce across these articles. It would also artificially halve their access to edit articles that they already edit.

I’ve seen countless disagreements between the two. Article-wise, they usually get resolved. It’s just the follow-up conduct accusations on the article talk pages and user talk pages that gets out of hand. An IBAN would resolve the latter issue but may be more trouble and have more productivity collateral damage than it’s worth. Hopefully the editors can further tone down their hostility towards each other and figure out how to coexist on these articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21:, thanks for that context. It is helpful to get outside confirmation that they both do individually contribute productively in the subject area, and I agree that means that topic bans would be a last option. I also agree about ibans generally causing trouble and damage, particularly when the two editors dislike each other so much that the odds are good that they will try to taunt each other into violating it. But I can't think of anything that solves the problem but doesn't cause trouble and damage. (Besides, obviously, both of them agreeing to tone things down and both of them agreeing to try to coexist, but history seems to show they can't do that.) Any ideas? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Given that this is the first mutual block for their feud, it’s possible that this is already the new action that can enact productive changes. In this case, topic & interaction bans are more severe sanctions for the two editors & the community than a short-term block.

Ideally we can leave the situation here if both editors demonstrate a willingness to civilly coexist on their shared interests. If they’re back on this in the future, then we should look at T/I bans. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Yeah, the "do nothing more" option is to leave them blocked for 2 weeks, hope that this is sufficient, and discuss tbans or ibans if it continues. If they want to return sooner, I've had another look at WP:IBAN again, and I think, while annoying, it won't seriously limit their ability to edit in a common topic area. A tban in this case seems the last resort. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: For whats its worth we almost came to an agreement to stay off each other’s talk pages (thats where 90%+ of the acrimony has occurred historically) but in the end CA walked away from our agreement after securing the unrelated concessions they had desired. This can be reviewed at User talk:Horse Eye Jack#WP:TPG. In good faith I gave them everything they had asked for in return for staying off each other’s talk pages, they abandoned the discussion after getting what they wanted and resumed posting on my talk page only three days later. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) etc, @Floquenbeam: I request that User:FormalDude lay off with the templated warnings when HEJ is already blocked? Whether justified or not, they can't be much more than less than helpful. ——Serial ^# 07:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am slowly coming around to the opinion that we should ban all templated warnings from anyone to anyone all the time forever. But since I'm currently in the minority on that, and templated warnings are so extremely common, I don't see any particular problem with those warnings. Horse Eye Jack seem to be a grown up who can manage his own talk page. I realize there's non-zero chance these are being used to antagonize rather than communicate, but that's true of ... what would you say, 90%? ... of all templated warnings (not counting the blizzard of legit vandalism warnings, which are also basically useless, just in a different way). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Only 90%? You're not as jaded as you seem :) ——Serial ^# 17:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

another (talk page watcher): HEJ is only blocked for 2 weeks. If an editor wants to communicate concerns about something HEJ has said or done on an article not related to the current block, they should be able to do so without being repeatedly reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: "Incredibly pointless" just about sums it up. All the best! ——Serial ^# 14:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: First off I want to thank you for removing what you perceived to be a disruptive warning template placed here. I appreciate it but in general my personal policy is not to remove anything from my talk page with very very few exceptions. I want it to be as open and complete a record as possible and I hope you won’t take offense or see this as a repudiation of your edits but I’m going to restore the warning template placed by FormalDude. Thank you again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem at all, Horse Eye: the important point, I felt, was not so much whether you were an adult enough to manage your page (!!!) but the fact that FormalDude needed to know that there was a time and a place for such warnings, and that this was neither. Best of luck sorting out your current irritating circumstance, though  :) ——Serial ^# 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that I-Ban is going to solve the problem given Horse Eye Jack was only reverting the problematic edits by CaradhrasAiguo. Instead, I think that it would help if both users are unblocked for ANI discussion where we can discuss who deserves a topic ban from editing anything about China. Siddsg (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I really don’t think that the amount of additional drama and potential hostility that an ANI discussion would place on both editors and the community would be worth it. Both editors almost always disagree on articles related to China, but I don’t think that either have done anything to merit a topic ban. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: a question, while I’m blocked can I address other concerns raised on my talk page like the warning discussed above? I was under the impression that I am to stick to addressing the block and nothing more but as this is my first time ever being blocked I’m still feeling my way around. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  While there is a "don't use talk page for anything except getting unblocked" school of thought, I don't subscribe to it. Generally, as long as you're not continuing the behavior that led to the block, and generally not breaking other rules, I'm not concerned with what goes on here. I can't stop another admin from wading in to disagree, but I kind of doubt that's going to happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  Gotcha, I’l keep it brief and uncontroversial. My intent is only to restore the warning template and explain why, not contest and get into a discussion over it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Way forward

HEJ, since (a) you have indicated a willingness to abide by an interaction ban, and (b) CA has taken a break and hasn't responded, and (c) if one of you just waits out the block, they won't be subject to an IBAN, and (4) I need to treat you both equally, and (5) it sounds like you guys are both productive editors when not interacting with each other, and (6) I don't want to be the go-to HEJ/CA mediator/babysitter/fairy godmother for all time, and want to go offline for the weekend soon, I propose the following:

• I unblock you, subject to an interaction ban from CA, outlined here, that will last until 8 July (when this block would have expired), whether or not CA requests an unblock.
• If CA wants to be unblocked, I'll give them the same offer.
• At the end of the two week period, when both are unblocked (either by request or waiting it out), you won't be subject to an IBAN. However, I really suggest you both act as if you are, because if things start back up, I won't do anything myself, I'll file a report at ANI. As you may or may not have experienced, ANI is a crapshoot, and could very well end in (a) wrist slaps, or (b) indef blocks or (c) anything in between.
• I you actually want an official IBAN, and CA actually wants an IBAN - which I think may actually be the case - I think I can unilaterally impose one without accusations of violating some policy somewhere.

So, first, do you agree to this condition for unblock? And second, do you want an indef mutual IBAN if CA does too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That works for me, even without a formal IBAN post 8 July I don’t see there being much of an issue going forward as its now clear that posting on each other’s talk pages and bringing each other to noticeboards are bright lines. Without those forums 90% of the problems go away. TBH I’ve know for a long time that the dispute with CA was way out of hand (I have a word document on my computer with six pages of CA’s most disruptive edits in diff form with brief summaries, largely unrelated to me, in case I ever needed a WMD so to speak. This is not something I have for any other editor.) but had no idea how to deescalate it. I had assumed they would take me to ANI at some point and I would need an ironclad argument for a boomerang, its kind of nice to know that fear won’t be hanging over my head going forward. On a side note I almost made it to two years without a block, I think my two year anniversary is today. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks against other Wikipedia editors

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Herriman_High_School#Newspaper_controversy, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Your comments to User:ClemRutter seem to be in violation of WP:PERSONALATTACKS. As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people (WP:AVOIDYOU). —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)