User:Enkyo2/Sandbox/Okinawa/Niijima

Common cause
I'm contacting you because of one small excerpt from a larger thread:


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
 * Strong oppose - This is a joke right? You want someone dismissed as a coordinator because they disagreed with your position on an article's name????????????????????????? Heeheeheehee! Thanks for the laugh - I need it! And thought maybe he had done something really bad, like support me in a dispute on whether a Japanese DDH was an aircraft carrier or not. Whewwww! - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BillCJ, no, I am not asking to dismiss Nick because he disagrees with the historical name of the article, but the way he is going about achieving this, by using a straw poll to change it to a fictitious name unsupported by references which is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and community consensus on straw polls--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what you made of BillCJ's odd observation? I would have thought you found it obscure or otherwise inexplicable? No matter -- I can explain. I'm the one he was angry with in this sentence, not you ... or at least, I'm the one who had the temerity to add a one-sentence edit to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and he didn't like it. In scanning the page where I found this trivial exchange, it was the "DDH" which caught my attention.

I stumbled into your further response only as a secondary matter.

If you're interested, I'll try to explain at least a tiny part of what you can't learn any other way, I suppose ....

What intrigues me even more than whatever is going on with BillCJ is your observations about Nick Dowling, whose words and actions demonstrate that he seems to espouse a non-standard disdain for WP:Verifiability.

Nick Dowling's unique notions about citations and references have caused me a great deal of what I would like to think of as otherwise avoidable difficulties; and it may be helpful to introduce myself.

Perhaps you may be able to help me learn more about this narrow aspect of your experiences with this difficult Wikipedia administrator. At best, something unforeseen may lead to something constructive?

In scanning your messages, I have to say that you sound like a bit of a loose cannon; but I fear others may describe me in the same way. I would have thought we were very, very different -- similar only in that we've both managed to blunder within range of Nick Dowling's highly-developed personal radar? Does that make us "peers" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Peers?
Hmm, I'd have to thank you for calling me a "loose cannon" given my current project article is Artillery. :) I find reading you quite interesting. At a guess you are a very well educated citizen of the UK, right?

Actually I do not harbour particular ill feelings towards most editors I have come into conflict with, but I am particular about statements of fact. Your own predicament may have been resolved earlier if Nick and others had been pointed to the Moskva class helicopter carrier which is actually an attempt to marry a light cruiser hull with a function of an anti-submarine carrier, though the class did not exist in the 60s because helicopters had only been introduced in that role late in the 50s (I think), and mostly operated from conventional carriers. Militaries of course have agendas that reference works are not supposed to :)

I don't know how peer-oriented I am given that the first person I offered to cooperate with turned into someone who constantly uses any pretext to oppose me, and stalks my edits with a vengeance. What I found objectionable about Nick's behaviour is the way he pursued his agenda, or rather that of User:Buckshot06 who was the one to raise the straw poll.

The world of Wikipedia is far more complex than one supposes. Not sure how long you have been editing, but you see, what happened originally is that Buckshot wanted me to help him in his articles on the Russian/Soviet topics, and I was not prepared to commit due to my own plans. Further, I had the temerity to point out that what he considered to be a Featured Article had many failings, all largely due to his lack of knowledge of Russian, and access to sources. After that he went after me trying to rename ubiquitous "Battle of..." articles into their proper named operational entities, largely basing it on works by a former US Army Colonel whom even BS06 acknowledges to be the expert in the field. The argument: it seems that by doing so, I am trying to Russify the English Wikipedia, that the names are "too long", and that "people don't know what a strategic offensive operation" is. All these are of course his point of view unsupported by any Wikipedia policy, convention or guideline, the last of two which he holds to be "as policy" despite explicit references in them to citing sources taking precedence over use of "common English names".

In any case, while all this was going on, I got involved in a defence of another "loose cannon" who was trying to edit the Battle of Stalingrad article by adding sourced statements who had been apparently battling bureaucracy for years, and having returned from a year's block was blocked again within a couple of days. One person who was explicitly against giving this editor another chance was, Raul654. Of course BS06 followed my participation, and Raul is also a member of the MilHist Project.

The editor who came up with "references" is User:Biruitorul who is a Rumanian editor whom I encountered in the dispute over the naming of Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation renamed to Jassy-Kishinev Operation, my primary arguments being that German names (Jassy) of Rumanian cities have no place in an English Wikipedia, and that one should be less ambiguous in the article title by using official names. You will note that although there was a flurry of activity on the article from Rumanian editors around the time of the protracted debate over the name of the article, it has since ceased despite the article being far from complete. The article was initialy brought to my attention because it had been renamed by User:Eurocoptertigre, also Rumanian, who renamed it into Rumanian because the two cities were (without a proper RM!) :) Note that Eurocopter is the editor who in the end renamed the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation into the "Soviet invasion of" on this occasion also. Eurocopter is also a Military History Project coordinator, but authors predominantly Rumanian articles with the exception of some Soviet articles where he had replaced me in assisting Buckshot06 because I suppose he also knows some Russian. Oh, Nick and Buckshot are very close through their co-participation on a range of articles related to Australian and New Zealand defence forces, Nick being Australian, and BS06 being from New Zealand.

Others present were User:Wwoods whom you probably met during the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer "discussion". User:Davewild is an admin who does a lot of article deletion, and doesn't seem to participate in military history, so I wonder what brought him to the article talk; Raul? And that's about it. So you see, all things are connected :)

Had I been more attention seeking and networked more, I may have put together my own "coalition of the willing" to counter the straw poll, but in any case, between them the other participants can call on about three dozen people, and one admin usually stays out of the poll to block anyone as an "uninvolved" admin as soon as there is any mention of "incivility", "trolling", being "disruptive" or "wikilawyering" in Wikispeak. The only one missing was Piotrus who represents the rather vocal Polish contingent in English Wikipedia. I have also had a run-in with a member of the former Yugoslavia brethren who calls himself a DIREKTOR (yes, in capitals) that almost immediately on me asking for sources in an article called it a "dispute", at which point BS06 appeared to offer him support as he always does. All the Eastern Europeans usually come in lots of 1/2 dozen, so I can only guess that Manchuria, seeing me isolated, was not a priority.

As for the endemic issues of Wikipedia, please email me on the subject and we can chat further. I do agree with most of what you have said in the AN/I, but prefer to stay out of there in case some enterprising admin decides to take an interest in my editing and I have to get into yet another "discussion" with someone who prefers "common" to exceptional quality standards.

Read your post again. I have to say that I really like the elegance of your expression. Wish I had it in me to emulate that, but alas. In any case, Verifiability is a huge problem in Wikipedia. I see that you mostly edit Japanese articles, so it may not apply, but in may subjects citations are drawn from what is available in GoogleBooks, which is not necessarily a bad thing, however I find that research by keywords means editors who do so do not bother to read the entire paragraph, chapter, and certainly not the book, or several books on the subject to gain subject perspective and context. The outcome is edit warring when someone discovers a Wikipedia article that offers far less than a reference article should.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ASIDE addressed to unknown, unidentified readers

 * Aside: This small bit is oddly addressed to anyone and everyone other than the one user whose talk page it is supposed to be. This was composed for those readers other than Mrg3105 who are studying these words: I encountered an unexpected response to the carefully drafted thread I sought to begin above -- a brash observation, not from Mrg3105, but from an unexpected, unsympathetic commentator:
 * Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution not only affirms the view I hold but is also unhelpful to the extreme.


 * Aside: On one hand, I don't know how to respond to this distinctly unfriendly writer, but I've no doubt that simply re-posting these poorly-chosen words becomes a response of sorts. If I can somehow  juggle the flow-chart reasoning needed here -- what happened is that I posted a message for Mrg3105 on this talk page; and my words were then copied and linked within the body of another message posted somewhere else by someone else.  So, does that mean that in responding here, I'm acknowledging in a forthright way that I got the message?  I did read it.  I did think about it.  I don't understand -- not yet.


 * Aside: I can't be alone in recognizing that this talk page represents a unique venue. The often strident prose in most, if not all of the threads which stretch out ad nauseam above is impossible to parse without knowing much more ..., but I'm guessing anyone can take the measure of the headings, including:
 * 2 Insulting people
 * 5 Discussion at AN/I
 * 6 Editing restriction reminder
 * 30 Formal warning
 * 33 AN/I discussion
 * 56 Civility and inappropriate accusations
 * 66 Blocked
 * 77 WP:Civil
 * 92 Blocked (2)
 * 93 Editing restriction
 * 97 Ban
 * 98 Common cause?
 * 98.1 Peers?
 * 98.2 ASIDE addressed to unknown, unidentified readers
 * 98.3 Focusing attention towards a constructive objective
 * 99 Ping


 * Aside:In this demonstrably non-standard talk page, I would have thought it well-established that "rallying" Mrg3105 to adopt a more measured, thoughtful approach to anything and everything within Wikipedia's ambit deserves approbation, encouragement, applause. I don't think that's what the writer meant -- no, probably not.


 * Aside: I will continue to try to fathom the depths of whatever it was I was supposed to have known a priori; but I just don't "get" it. In the meantime, I don't want to delay reiterating a sterling phrase:
 * " ...Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution ...."
 * Aside: If the problem isn't so much what I wrote, but rather that I had the temerity simply to contact Mrg3105, that would seem like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut -- an apt simile.  Perhaps it will ameliorate misunderstandings by explaining that the genesis of the idea to contact Mrg3105 is suggested by imitating BillCJ and Nick Dowling. Imitation is a form of flattery, I know; and I wouldn't want this to be taken that way.  Nevertheless, I do recognize that these two are "established users" in ways I wouldn't have even imagined before chance intervened; and I admit frankly that I wouldn't have thought of this on my own. --Tenmei (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Focusing attention towards a constructive objective
Mrg3105 -- The odd, awkward, voyeur's context above was not created by you or me, but what is to be done except to acknowledge it. In light of that intrusive audience, do I need to say frankly that I disagree with a great many things you've written? Do I need to announce that I'd not be willing to endorse much of what I've read on this page? What matters most is this: even if you were wrong, wrong, wrong in all sorts of ways I can't even begin to enumerate, that would not affect my belief -- my near certainty -- that some of what you've alleged is credible, not proven or demonstrated, but plainly credible.

Separating wheat from chaff becomes a labour-intensive chore ... but I'm persuaded to invest in that winnowing in order to protect the other opportunities which attend participating in the Wikipedia project.

I can only guess about the issues implicit in the Aside, but it seems undeniably dark and only obliquely related to WP:V and WP:NPOV. On the other hand -- looking on the brighter side -- I guess we should have reason to feel gratified that our writing is likely to garner a much larger readership than I would have otherwise speculated. If the consequences prove ultimately beneficial, then the term "voyeurs" would seem less relevant perhaps? For an unsolicited audience, the following becomes a timely, wholesome rejoinder to what? I'm at a loss for words ....


 * The range of your Wikipedia experiences is wider than mine; and the subjects which seem to attract your attention comprise a broader array as well.


 * Please forgive my narrow-mindedness, but I think I need to admit a priori that I've not much interest in Russian or Soviet subjects. I can't easily recall having made any contribution to Russia-related subjects, except in minor edits to Sergei Witte and articles about other Russian negotiators who hammered out details of the Treaty of Portsmouth. In fact, what little attention I've even given to Russo-Japanese War -- other than the treaty which ended the conflict --  has focused only on the Western military attachés serving with Japanese armies: Herbert Cyril Thacker, John Charles Hoad, Ian Standish Monteith Hamilton, etc.


 * When you think about it, the fact that our interests are so divergent could be a good thing. It might help limit and focus what we might be able to work through together.  In varying ways, we both   seem to have stumbled over issues and consequences flowing from WP:V.  That alone won't be enough of a fulcrum to leverage anything worthwhile, but it's a start.  I've only scanned your talk page threads, not studied them; but sometimes, maybe -- not always -- I think you're trying to get a handle on issues or topics that I'm trying to grapple with as well.  I don't have any suggestions about what to make of whatever we might have in common, no plans yet; but if we could figure out how to manage something both small and constructive, the effort could be worthwhile.


 * There's no particular reason to rush, of course; but I'm eager to try something new. I'm guessing that you generally move along faster than I do sometimes.  You might be more impulsive than I am.  So what?


 * Time is an unknowable element in whatever we need to do. It is inherently impetuous to propose inventing something different from tactics and strategies which haven't worked nearly well enough thus far.


 * Changing tone a little bit: I wonder if a couple of coincidences are worth mentioning:


 * 1. When I read what you had written above, the first and only Russian who came to mind was Sergei Witte, which caused me to think of his Japanese negotiating counterpart at Portsmouth, Komura Jutarō. As it happens, Baron Komura's family comes from the region of eastern Kyūshū which was once known as Hyūga province ... and, as you know, I only happened to notice something you wrote because BillCJ mentioned 16DDH (Hyūga class helicopter destroyer) just before a contribution you made to a tendentious and ineffective thread.


 * 2. When I re-visited Talk:Sergei Witte, I was reminded of a trivial incident I'd forgotten about entirely. An anonymous reader had posted a plausible question about Witte's official government title in Russia; and another editor had simply endorsed the question as a seemingly valid one. The short thread focused on one of the very, very few aspects of the article in which I actually had something to offer. At Talk:Sergei Witte, the question has to do with whether  Wikipedia should or should not identify Witte with what seemed like an Americanized title -- assuming his position was just like that of the American Secretary of State?  Obviously, a thoughtful question with easy-to-parse ramifications ....


 * What pleases me has nothing to do with Witte or the answer -- rather, it's the reasoning which underlies this trivial contribution in April 2008. As you can see for yourself, I posted:
 * If the term "Secretary of State" is an error in this context, it's at least an error which we can attribute to the New York Times in 1905. Does this help, perhaps, to better focus this discussion or perhaps to move it forward constructively? --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I could have typed out in April 2008 (as I did in July 2008) --
 * Please see Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true ... which, as you may know, is really nothing more than the first sentence of the official policy page explanatory text.


 * I could have drafted wiki-jargon in April 2008 (as Bellhalla did in July 2008) --
 * Also, I want to add that the policy is verifiability, not necessarily truth. NYT meets All three sources meet the WP:RS standard. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again and again and again over the past month, I've witnessed this kind of salutatory reasoning rejected, twisted, ignored, blocked, etc. I don't have an adequate vocabulary to describe what I felt about the combination of stonewalling and disingenuous spin and who-knows-what-else.  In July, I found myself on the fringes of an odd "event" which still feels overly-orchestrated in retrospect.  Although I tried my best to pay attention, my participation -- even as a passive witness -- was ineffective.


 * In contrast, finding this thread from last Spring feels like a refreshing drink of water on a hot day.


 * What an odd chain of lucky links: Your introductory exposition/narrative mentioned a number of Russia-related subjects ...; and THEN that inspired me to think of Sergei Witte ...; and THEN that caused me to check-out the talk page ...; and THEN I chanced across this helpful illustration of something small which worked out nicely .... It's good to be reminded of something good. I don't know where to go with this, but maybe we can manage to work together towards a modestly encouraging start.  What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<!--

NO problematic conduct other than Tenmei
John Vandenberg concludes here "there are no specific findings of problematic user conduct for the parties other than Tenmei." The short sentence leaves me wrongly battered as John Vandenberg joins Mailer diablo in casting me in an undeserved role.

No.

John Vandenberg marginalizes the quiet fact that, in the face of extraordinary provocation, I complied with one very simple instruction on the evidence page: "Stay focused on the issues raised." For this, is it seemly for ArbCom to conclude that somehow I deserve added condemnation? No.

Caspian blue's edit history establishes a context of which I was largely unaware until User:Jayvdb's proposal here motivated me to investigate with more diligence. It is fair to characterize this history as a series of battles interspersed with occasional work on articles. The thrust of his/her contributions are encapsulated in the following:
 * Caspian blue explains here: "... the category of the anti-Japanese sentiments in Korean is existing prior and was created by Japanese. The category, anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea by myself is to intend to equofiy the viewpoint in the two sides. FYI, my sentiment toward Japanse is originated by the Japanses in English and Korean Wiki ." -- 14:25, 29 September 2007 [emphasis added]


 * JALockhart explains here: "Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you are making yourself look very foolish and immature with your edit summaries—especially your accusations of bad faith and uncivilty, since your own comments appear rather belligerent and uncivil. Your invocation of Wikipedia policies also appears rather disingenuous, so I suggest that you desist with the inflammatory comments and not engage in inflammatory exchanges—to English speakers, they look very childish. Instead, just stick to facts and ignore provocations. Please remember also that Wikipedia is not a forum for carrying out battles over national pride ." -- 03:00, 7 January 2008 [emphasis added]

See also:
 * March 2008 link, WP:AN/IncidentArchive#Appletrees is abusing the system
 * March 2008 link, WP:AN/IncidentArchive380#Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets
 * June 2008 link, User:Caspian blue/Watchlist of Japanese 2channel
 * July 2008 link, WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25 Comfort women
 * August 2008 diff WP:AN/IncidentArchive460#User Sennen goroshi's stalking and disruption


 * January 2009 link, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Sennen goroshi Caspian blue
 * Related block : diff-- 17:07, 27 October 2007

I'm just one amongst many who have been been singled out by Caspian blue across a span of years; but in this venue, my restraint earns rebuke as a novel and stunningly perverse reward.

Anti-Japanese bias
An odd backstory affects the proposed decision; but it has nothing to do with 7th-8th century central Asia nor with the locus of dispute or scope of this case as I understood it before now.

Caspian blue and others have determined that I am Japanese, despite the fact that I have avoided self-labeling in terms of nationality, gender, marital status, etc. I gather that Caspian blue has endured a number of caustic disputes with anonymous contributors and sockpuppets; and many of these were seen to have originated in Japan. Caspian blue is Korean; and aggrieved complaints about perceived anti-Korean bias are commonplace, not only involving those like me with perceived or actual Japanese backgrounds.

As ipso facto "evidence" of my "long-term harassment", Caspian blue alleges here that in 2008 "Tenmei ... attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors ...." Inexplicably, Caspian blue's 2008 complaint at WP:AN/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks did not encompass this specific claim ... which demonstrates that it simply didn't happen. In today's context, Teeninvestor's uncritical acceptance of every accusation doesn't change this fundamental reality ... although it aparently makes unjustified innuendo seem more palatable.

This one example suggests complicated subtexts affecting a broad tranche of wiki-edits.

Harassment
Caspian blue is not a victim of harassment; rather, it's the other way around.


 * Amagase is wrongly denigrated with "harassment" claim -- 07:24, 27 March 2008
 * BLOCK: 06:53, 27 March 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked Caspian blue (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (disruption on Fraud, harassment of User:Amagase)


 * Roux is wrongly denigrated with "harassment" claim -- 15:06, 31 March 2009
 * BLOCK: 01:13, 1 April 2009 Georgewilliamherbert blocked Caspian blue (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: harrassment of User:Roux'')


 * Tenmei is wrongly denigrated with "harassment" claim -- 01:16, 26 April 2009

Bottom line
No. This travesty becomes ArbCom's nadir -- wrong in all the ways that matter. --~

was barely tolerable a week or so ago, and now it has evolved beyond my ability to characterize neatly. If this is the way this ArbCom case is going to lean, I need the opportunity to participate in the case ... but first, I have to ask, what happened to the issues which were identified at the outset?

Who's kidding who?

In detailing what happened to Roux, I identify a pattern similar to that which afflicts me in this venue. The backstory of what Caspian blue too casually labels as harassment by Roux began at WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-06 Woo Jang-choon in November 2008. I followed developments in this case in hopes that I'd be able to identify a more effective strategy for dealing with Caspian blue in the past and in the future.

Roux intiated a mediation process diff, and his first step was to establish unremarkable ground rules. Caspian blue's increasingly aggrieved objections to each and every diff made any progress impossible -- see thread here. Roux withdrew from the case and, for a short time, he also withdrew from participating in Wikipedia.

From this fragmentary exchange, Caspian blue contrived an illusory backstory of unspecified conflict. It is likely that no one other than me knows the explicit self-fulfilling nature of what Caspian blue identifies as "antipathy;" and I have to wonder how likely it is that readers of this thread will have actually examined.

When both Caspian blue and Roux were participants in the same thread, Caspian blue would allude to a past history in of conflict. For redundant unequivocal clarity, it is necessary to scan the thread in which this so-called dispute is seen as naught but a self-fulfilling proposition -- see here. This tactical comment was intended to devalue Roux's credibility and to discourage Roux's from participating at all. I had observed this same pattern again and again with other editors, but in this specific instance involving Roux, I knew the details of the so-called conflict -- see here.

Roux's constructive Proposed solution at Sock puppet accusations by User:Rjecina.

This is the first contribution to this dispute thread:
 * Oppose Here you go again, Roux. You're not "we" or a delegate of Wikipedia. I'm not tired of the issue brought up so would others be. I see your typical habit of using the bare and unconstructive expression like "sick of" and proposing a drastic suggestion not actually solving the core problem. You're quite good at inflating the issue into a drama as always. Besides, this issue is more fit to RFC first before such making the drastic decision. I don't want to see another victims by your more harsh private probation than any ArBCom probation. Since you've heard a lot "do not act like an admin" (not in a good aspect), so don't.--Caspian blue 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Grow up. //roux  18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be childish--Caspian blue 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on the content of the proposal, and not your antipathy towards me. I expect you to remove your personal comments as they are entirely inappropriate. //roux  18:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given your "so mature" response like "Grow up" to the criticism, I see your mention of the "antipathy towards me" is quite contradictory as always. Bear the valid criticism on your uncivil attitude since you heavily criticize the two users. Do not give a stress to any users who seek an "administrative" help from the board. Here is a place for helping and resolving problems, not making a more drama. I clearly said I oppose your proposal because that drastic method does not help the problem. Read it again as not projecting "your antipathy towards me". And refrain from exaggerating your "own feeling" as "we".--Caspian blue 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on the content of the proposal, and not your antipathy towards me. I expect you to remove your personal comments as they are entirely inappropriate.//roux  18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this a fairly reasonable proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue, a/k/a Apletrees (diff), is a long-term warrior. It is hard to summarize a complex attack pattern succinctly, but it is an theatrical act -- a performance honed across years.

ArbCom is correct in anticipating future difficulties; but a risk aversion strategy has proven inadequate. Roux was the volunteer.

3RR as wiki-weapon

 * diff Nov 2007, Sennen Goroshi

Blocks

 * diff-- 17:07, 27 October 2007
 * diff -- 23:18, 8 December 2007

Mediation

 * WBJscribe, diff, 15:30, 19 January 2008

+ 	I will link to a few incidents establishing a prior record of abusive behavior with multiple other editors: + 	 	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	This took about 20 min with the noticeboard search function, ruling out cases where CB was not a party (just commented) and those where he was filing a case and clearly didn't use abusive behavior in filing the complaint, leaving about half of the cases he filed or were filed against him. + 	 	+ 	There are greater and lesser transgressions among those sets - some are far worse than others - but this type of pattern of repeat offense and repeatedly coming back before the ANI and AN noticeboards and repeatedly coming into massive scale conflict with multiple other editors are all highly problematic. I don't think anyone has tried to pull this all together so far - assuming CB was an irritation to be politely reminded again to be polite and AGF when he pops up every few weeks. But the scope and scale of the problem, now that I have put it together, is extremely disturbing. We have indefinitely blocked people for far less disruption and far fewer personal attacks than the incidents above demonstrate. + 	 	+ 	  	+ 	Georgewilliamherbert (diff) 07:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Revision as of 07:40, 1 April 2009 -- -->
 * Pierre Bérégovoy
 * June 2008
 * IncidentArchive431#Caspian_Blue
 * IncidentArchive432#Edit_warring_.28repeated_blanking_of_sourced_text.29_by_User:Caspian_blue_at_Seolleongtang
 * IncidentArchive433#User:Caspian_blue
 * August 2008
 * IncidentArchive460#User:Sennen_goroshi.27s_stalking_and_disruption
 * IncidentArchive470#Caspian_blue
 * IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei.27s_abusing_AfD_and_personal_attacks
 * October 2008
 * IncidentArchive485#User:Nihonjoe.27s_bad_faith_behaviors
 * IncidentArchive487#User:_Caspian_blue
 * November 2008
 * IncidentArchive490#Block.2FUnblock.2C_Caspian_Blue.2C_AIV_reports.2C_copyrighted_material..._am_i_missing_anything.3F
 * IncidentArchive495#hijacked_RfC
 * December 2008
 * IncidentArchive496#Edit_warring_at_Koreans
 * IncidentArchive499#User:Caspian_blue_continued_false_accusations.2C_misrepresentations_and_personal_attacks
 * January 2009
 * IncidentArchive510#Sennen_goroshi_Caspian_Blue
 * March 2009
 * IncidentArchive520#Sock_puppet_accusations_by_User:Rjecina