User talk:Bob K31416/Archive 2017

DS Violation at Russian interference Talk

You have violated 1RR, which applies to the talk page as well as the article page. Please revert your unhatting. Anyway, the separate discussion continues below that which you've unhatted. You should not misrepresent what @SMcCandlish: told you, even if he apparently didn't understand that it's you who appear to be considered disruptive in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I first went to WP:ANI to see if the 1rr applied to the talk page and the responses I got were that the 1rr doesn't apply to the talk page. [1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Ah, I had not memorized all the usernames involved; I saw that the "halp! people wanna hat my pet flamewar" appeal at UT:Jimbo was posted by Nocturnalnow; hadn't noticed that Bob K31416 was also coming from the essentially same angle. The short version: when the people at the talk page mostly consider it a bunch of noise, everyone who responds at UT:Jimbo says it's a bunch of noise, and WP's founder says it's a bunch of noise, and they agree why it's a bunch of noise, then it's a bunch of noise and thus it's time to move on. The reasoning at WP:1AM still applies when the 1 is a 2. It does not matter that various people in the world have a particular, or several particular, theories about the matter at issue; if we don't have reliable, independent, secondary sources for it, we don't write about it, as a matter of policy at WP:V and WP:NOR. There is no point continuing an unconstructive thread about how much someone wants to write about it and what rationales they can come up with for why they should be allowed to write about it, we just don't do it. There is no loophole, no backdoor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So the takeaway, as I understand your comment, is that Bob should undo his unhat and move on? Thanks for your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what I'm suggesting. As an uninvolved third party responding to concerns in two venues, that direction looks like the productive one to take.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There are currently two changes to the article being considered in the discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW. ARBCOM ruled that DS apply to all pages in the topic area. if you wish to clarify or amend an ARBCOM ruling, e.g. by exempting talk pages, ANI would not be the place to get that done. see [2]. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Even ANI can't do it. Would have to be an amendment request at WP:ARCA. And the request would be turned down. The vast majority of topical disruption takes place on talk pages, since in article pages it's almost always revert warring or PoV-pushing or OR, which are all already addressable pretty swiftly by editing and content policies. The stuff that gets people calling each other names and making gross accusations is generally the debate material. Comes back to WP:NOT#FORUM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't at issue. It was simply a clarification of the ArbCom message re 1rr. See [3]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For reference [4] . --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your talk

It's your talk page, but that doesn't mean you get to keep abusive comments directed at editors other than you from an account engaged in outright and sustained harassment on your talk page in order to encourage them. You might want to think about what you're doing. Volunteer Marek  16:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion [5], I can get rid of the heading, which I had some concerns about myself, but I think the rest of the message that you deleted is within Wikipedia policy so I will copy it here and invite you to reply. Thanks.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bob, a user was just banned for this nonsense. If you don't understand why, ask an Admin. I suggest you revert. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Re "a user was just banned for this nonsense." — Please provide a link to information on that case. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

[6] I will have nothing further to say in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked and I don't think there's any problem here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Look, you're obviously trying to encourage or enable a user who is harassing me and several other users on Wikipedia. You are doing this willfully and purposefully. That makes you guilty of WP:HARASSMENT as well. How about you just remove this whole section?  Volunteer Marek  19:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

AGF what? That you're purposefully enabling harassment? How about WTF?  Volunteer Marek  19:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Being that it's on my talk page, I look at the IP's message as information. I also welcome your side of the story, for example commenting on anything that you think is false in the IP's message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if you think that the content in IP user's message is not WP:HARASSMENT, you're enabling trolling behaviour by giving the sock puppet the attention they so eagerly seek. Nothing good will come of this. Please delete your acc...this discussion. Politrukki (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

How did you learn of this discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I watchlisted your talk page because few weeks ago, but I'm not sure why. I actually wanted to follow the 1RR discussion above. If I recall correctly, at ANI/AE there was a link to #DS Violation at Russian interference Talk, but it's possible that I watchlisted when I saw you making reverts at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and anticipated that SPECIFICO would come here to harangue you. If you insist, I can offer my comment to that discussion, but the bottom line is that SPECIFICO is either bullshitting you or just plain wrong.
If you're implying that I came here because of secret discussions held at the behest of (Redacted), I will categorically deny everything! Politrukki (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like trolling to me. If you think it is, don't feed the troll. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted the content in question. Bob's edit warring the content back onto this page is prohibited conduct that falls under WP:EVADE. Editing on behalf of a user that has been blocked is just not a smart thing to do. It's also far outside of acceptable community norms, as has been noted. Geogene (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at WP:EVADE and I didn't see anything that would prevent me from restoring my message [7]. If you think otherwise, please quote here the excerpt from WP:EVADE that you are using. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sea lion/IDHT. I suspect that you do understand how this falls under EVADE. If you don't, now that that has been pointed out to you, then you may not be competent to edit Wikipedia. Regardless, I have no responsibility to explain this further. Geogene (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bob K31416. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories and …

Thx for your work on the 'Foreign xx' category structure and, of course, for pointing me to the bottom navbox. I imagine many overlook that.

I do have some further thoughts on that taxonomy, but would like to first revisit another topic, if I may.

Re my Talk page proposal to Add to Background, I'm realizing that the Russian politician's statement is much more germane:

Alexei Pushkov, a senator on the upper house of Russia’s parliament’s defense and security committee, said “The new hacking allegations against Russia are clearly timed to coincide with the handover of power in the United States … The aim is to force Trump into enmity with Russia."

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You might look at the section #Russia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Needling at Jimbo Talk

You do realize that Jimbo Talk is one of the most public pages in Wikipedia, and that it is not a DR venue, right? Because you've gone running there to try to start a public discussion of my edits twice now in two months. [8] Do you think that that will improve the editing environment that you claim to be worried about? It won't, because it's just a weaselly and passive aggressive behavior that foments drama. At best it looks like you're fishing for sympathy, and at worst it looks like you're hoping to get somebody (me) 'dealt with' outside of normal process. Do you really think you will improve your standing in the community by trying to sound the public alarm about my edit history because the other day I said something to you that you may think was not, strictly speaking, nice? [9] Are you hoping someone there will validate your opinion? That's not particularly likely, because most of the old hands there can smell other peoples' wiki-drama a mile away and probably don't even care about every little instance of mild unfriendliness you are exposed to here. That smell of drama will rub off on you too. If I wanted to give you advice, it would be to not be seen there too often, and not be seen trying to gossip about other editors there at all if it can be avoided. But you don't seem to be particularly clueful or self-aware, so just know that I see what you're trying to do. The first time I ignored it, and that apparently didn't work. Geogene (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

IP 2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221

Just to be clear, this sock isn't you, is it? Have a look at its edit history. Geogene (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)