Template:NoBracketBot

Archives Archive Box #1 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

On the one hand, I agree that DevilWearsBrioni is being stubborn. On the other hand, I would prefer to see this settled in some way other than Arbitration Enforcement, and the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement are likely to check whether you have exhausted all prior remedies. DWB is not the only editor who is tagging the article; one other editor also is, even though DWB is the more stubborn. I would suggest requesting formal mediation as the last step before Arbitration Enforcement. It might work. If not, you know that you have tried it. You could also ask the tagging editors exactly what text they think should be changed, and whether they will submit to a Request for Comments. Just tagging is not a long-term solution for any article. Ask what they want, and whether they are willing either to resort to formal mediation or to a Request for Comments. I do think that the tagging is tendentious, but you haven't exhausted your options yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:With all due respect Robert, but if you actually take a look at the talk page, where I’ve clarified, you’ll notice why I restored the tags. Stubbornness is continiously removing the tags and ignoring the concerns I raise, while simultaneously asking me to clarify. SilentResident is fully aware of the fact that both I and Resnjari don’t consider the lede neutral, yet this doesn’t stop SilentResident and Alexikoua from removing the neutrality tag.

Formal meditation would not solve anything as this does not boil down to a single content dispute, rather it’s a wide spectrum of content disputes that arise as a consequence of… well, I’d argue that AE is the appropriate place for that discussion. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that DWB's claim about stubborn activity refers actually to user:Resnjari's sterile reverts, who reached 5rvs in less than 24h. I've warned him to self rv, else a report will be unavoidable.Alexikoua (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation is appropriate when there are multiple content disputes. Informal mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard does not always work well in complex content disputes. This appears to be a complex content dispute with multiple parts, of the sort for which formal mediation would be appropriate. Any editor who thinks that their own conduct has been good and that other editors have been stubborn and disruptive is free to request WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement, and Arbitration Enforcement is quicker and more decisive when the area is subject to discretionary sanctions. However, Arbitration Enforcement cannot resolve the content dispute, only restrict what editors can be involved in the dispute, typically by topic-banning some of them. I see this as an appropriate case for formal mediation. However, anyone who wants Arbitration Enforcement is free to request it, but should first read the boomerang essay. This is a good case for formal mediation. I suggest requesting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am really stressed with all this. Some editors here certainly do not know how to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and as result of this, the dispute is becoming more and more like a Lernean Hydra; solving one dispute seems to produce more disputes in its place. I am many years in Wikipedia and have seen nothing like this before. Bias, failure to reach a consensus, ramming content into the article without consulting with all parties, multiple 3RR breaches... Really, I am aware that every editor here believes his opinions/positions to be just, right, correct, and valid while regards the opinions/positions of the other editors to be wrong, unfair, double standards or invalid. But what the editors here are missing is their actions being not appropriate for a site such as Wikipedia. This is not a personal blogspot where anyone could impose his views to other editors. Wikipedia has clear rules and guidelines for everyone to follow in resolving debates and disputes. We can't, everytime a dispute arises on Expulsion of Cham Albanians, to fail reaching a consensus and constantly reach deadlocks. If the AE is an option, then so be it. But do not expect that such unencyclopedic behavior to not affect your positions in the long-term. For our actions, there are consequences. Dear editors, do not pretend that I haven't warned you. Wikipedia is not a playground, especially its ARBMAC-protected articles. That is all I have to say. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the argument that Arbitration Enforcement will be a better solution to this complex set of content disputes than formal mediation to be strange. Arbitration Enforcement won't settle any content disputes. What it may do is to topic-ban or block some editors. That may be necessary, and it appears increasingly likely that it is necessary, due to the intransigence of a few editors, but does anyone really think that topic-bans and blocks are the best way to resolve content disputes? Does anyone really think that edit-warring and tagging are the best way to resolve content disputes? Tagging doesn't resolve anything; it only identifies a problem that needs solving. (At this point, I will say that anyone who tags this article without providing an alternate version that will resolve the controversy is being disruptive. That is my opinion.) Mediation might work. Arbitration Enforcement might work, but only if the real problem is conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe AE to be the best way for solving problems. If I really believed the AE to be the magic wand in solving all problems, now the AE report could have been filled already. But thing is, I did not fill it with the belief that the dialog between editors could be more productive than an AE report could be. I believe the dialog between editors can be more effective and more rewarding than Arbitration Enforcements. Hence why I am disappointed now, because I really had my hopes that things could have had taken a different turn now. With dialog, is much easier to reach consensus and agree together on balanced chances in sensitive and POV-prone articles. Dialog could ensure that the content in the article could have as minimal POV and bias as possible, while at same time, maintaining as more information for the reader as possible, with all different opinions presented in an way that the article remains neutral in its tone.

Thing here is, the AE does NOT provide the same positive aspects that are stemming from dialog. The AE does not solve POV and bias. AE does not allow the presence of different opinions and views in an article. AE seems more to kill the dialog than to elevate it. AE more or less, punishes the editors.

And, now, since the dialog is impossible and the Talk Page has become equally as ineffective as speaking to an empty wall, then I guess, the other solutions, are the only options, even if they could cost more than a dialog could have had. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Expulsion of Cham Albanians, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

Hello! The last time you visited my talk page, you wrote "I do not intend to flood your talk page with useless messages, ..." Today I wake up to 21 messages from you. Has World World III boken out? I see nothing in these messages that has anything to do with me.

As far as I am concerned, the case was closed after the edits of Taivo and me and your statement that "The lede now is much better."

If you want to discuss other editors' statements and behaviour, that is up to you. But please not on my TP. The chances are that Taivo will never see it, since he can hardly be expected to monitor my humble TP. I would appreciate if you moved your comments to somewhere else. Regards! --T*U (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: In fact I did not flood your talk; just a single message I left in response to him since he was mentioning my name. Unless any edits to pre-existing message also count and are shown as separate notifications? Then this is very embarrassing. I am ashamed. I could have expected that. Well, in all case, I don't think I will be moving a dead discussion to new places because this was the final reply. I am done with him; after all I doubt any continuation of the discussion can make any difference to that editor if it didn't already. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 07:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes: every single edit, even changing one letter, gives a notification, so I got 21 notifications. That certainly looked as a flood. But never mind, I quickly saw what is was.

If you are not moving your comment somewhere else, you must forgive me for removing it, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with me. If it was meant as a last reply to Taivo, chances are the he would never read it anyway, since it was on a page he probably does not monitor. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Of course feel absolutely free to remove it, since this is your Talk Page after all. As for the unexpected flood of 21 notifications, you have again my sincere apologies, my dear friend. Although, to be fair, from a different respective, the number 21 isn't that bad (well, in terms of symbolism). In fact, it is considered to be a sacred number in certain religions, languages or parts of the world. Here more info about it: [1]... So, you can somehow consider yourself to be lucky on top of that unfortunate incident. :-) Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if you know the "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy", you will know that 42 is the answer to "the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", so we are half way there. --T*U (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Start of mediation (I hope). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• About the deletion: the correct method would have been to strike it out, as here, but I accept that deletion as a necessary "oops, sorry" correction. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: Much appreciated. -- SILENTRESIDENT 08:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember long ago (before I became an admin) a Wikipedia user who went round articles about fiction serieses deleting their episode guides, until he was blocked (not by me). My own saying with so-called trivia is "One man's trivia is often another man's important relevant matter". For example, I have little interest in football, but I do not go round systematically deleting football matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: Trivia are an important part of Wikipedic life. While not part of an article's main focus, they often contain valuable information related to it that couldn't be hosted on other articles due to lack of relevancy. For this very reason I have been active in contributing and adding trivia information in various movie-focused and videogame-focused Wikias around the Web (such as Zelda Wikia, Super Mario Wikia, Fringe Wikia, Game of Thrones Wikia, etc) where I happen to be a registered editor. I think they are very interesting and helpful. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that DevilWearsBrioni refuses to listen to reason on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians (which has already built up to 56 kilobytes), and I or we or someone better seek remedy against him elsewhere, such as a warning to get him banned or blocked. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: Yes I agree absolutely. A ban or block is urgently needed on him.

I must inform you that resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing, because he has already ignored any of the previous ARBMAC warnings (one on his Talk: [2] on 26 September 2016, and one another on the Talk archive) and kept up with his disruptive behaviors.

He was very clear to me that: 1) he knows of ARBMAC rules and acknowingly ignores and violates them, 2) he intends to stick to his disruptive behavior until he succeeds to have his biased and POV changes implemented to the article and 3) no one can stop or discourage him from doing that, even when under the threat of being reported to the Arbitration Enforcement for sanctions to be imposed on him. Here I copy his archived reply to me, for you to read) where he vowed to keep up with his disruptions even in the shadow of an AE report against him:

"I can assure you that I was already aware of ARBMAC. I will continue editing the Cham expulsion page; false narratives, temper tantrums, lies and half-truths will not discourage me from editing. As such, it is advised that you actually go through with the report. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC))"

And you know the rest of the story - despite previous Mediation resolutions and full awareness of ARBMAC rules, he not only has returned to the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians, but also has resumed his disruptive edits, with new 3RR breaches, more edit wars, acting against established consensus, violations of Mediator resolutions, even more violations of ARMBAC rules, restoration of the OR and SYNTH tags (which the Mediator Iazyges himself had removed), NPOV violations (see his biased edits where he added the dubious claims about "Greek Ethnic Cleansing against Albanians" to the Aftermath section of the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians...), and, overall, he kept up with an editorial misconduct that goes against Wikipedia's core principles and rules.

Only a permanent ban or block can end his constant disruptions on Expulsion of Cham Albanians and other Balkan-Related articles. He has violated every Wikipedia rule out there, and he has causing many problems to us the rest of the editors who struggled for years to preserve the neutrality in the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, and he has refused to listen to our pleas or be reasoned with. We the editors were already very patient with him thus far (while your Mediation reached 56 kilobytes, imagine how many more kilobytes we reached if we also add to that the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, the No Original Research Noticeboard, and the Incidents Noticeboard, and the Cham Expulsion's Talk Page!), at the cost of our own sanity, and he has already be given many chances to remedy himself and see the errors of his ways to avoid a possible ban, but he won't. This editor's stubbornness should not be underestimated. He really mean it when he says that he does not intend to give up until he gets what he wants on the Expulsion of Cham Albanians. -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: to understand how easy and soft we were towards DevilWearsBrioni, you have to imagine how many more kilobytes of chat we wasted with him: while your Mediation reached 56 kilobytes, imagine how many more kilobytes the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, the No Original Research Noticeboard, the Incidents Noticeboard, and the Cham Expulsion's Talk Page, are if combined! Wikipedia is very clear on this: better impose discretionary sanctions to editors refusing to follow the rules rather than waste too much time trying to convince the disruptive editors to be... not disruptive. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: if it is not a problem, I have informed now the Mediator Iazyges about the latest developments on the OR/SYNTH case (it was under his mediation, this summer). I want to thank you and everyone else for their patience on this long dispute. I know such cases can really test everyone's patience, but nevertheless I am very grateful and I hope for it to be over, more or less, either in the one or the other way. Because I don't think I can keep myself forever into this. You have my big thanks and gratitude for your help. -- SILENTRESIDENT 09:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]