EdJohnston (talk | contribs) |
Ohiostandard (talk | contribs) →Close by AGK of Enforcement Request concerning SD: Reply and question. |
||
Line 394: | Line 394: | ||
:::@<u>Ed</u>: In [[User_talk:Ohiostandard#Re:_AGK.27s_closure_of_Supreme_Deliciousness_enforcement_request | <u>this</u>]] thread, I quoted you and Gatoclass [[User_talk:Ohiostandard#You_are_of_course_welcome | <u>here</u>]], beginning with "outdenting". You'll need to read the thread for the context, however. I infer from AGK's talk, and from his removal of my talkback, that he does not intend to accept my suggestion that he consult with you and Gatoclass to ask whether you favored closing with no action. Based on your previous comments I assume you probably don't care; your prerogative, of course, but I informed Gato, who I also quoted, so I thought I should inform you, as well. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 05:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::@<u>Ed</u>: In [[User_talk:Ohiostandard#Re:_AGK.27s_closure_of_Supreme_Deliciousness_enforcement_request | <u>this</u>]] thread, I quoted you and Gatoclass [[User_talk:Ohiostandard#You_are_of_course_welcome | <u>here</u>]], beginning with "outdenting". You'll need to read the thread for the context, however. I infer from AGK's talk, and from his removal of my talkback, that he does not intend to accept my suggestion that he consult with you and Gatoclass to ask whether you favored closing with no action. Based on your previous comments I assume you probably don't care; your prerogative, of course, but I informed Gato, who I also quoted, so I thought I should inform you, as well. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 05:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::I believe Gatoclass does not consider himself to be an uninvolved admin for purposes of closing ARBPIA enforcement requests. My own views have been adequately expressed. Notice that SD has not filed an appeal. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston#top|talk]]) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
::::I believe Gatoclass does not consider himself to be an uninvolved admin for purposes of closing ARBPIA enforcement requests. My own views have been adequately expressed. Notice that SD has not filed an appeal. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston#top|talk]]) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Yes, thanks; I just learned from Gatoclass of his self-recusal from that area of AE. You may choose not to disclose the information, of course, and I could respect your reasons for doing so, but I'd still like to ask whether my strong impression from your comments that you intended to close with no action is correct? If you were to tell me that impression is ''not'' correct, I'd naturally have a very different view of AGK's close, and one that I'd frankly be glad to be able to have. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 15:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:BelloWello]] == |
== [[User:BelloWello]] == |
Revision as of 15:16, 2 June 2011
You have a reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RFC
Ed, I initiated an RfC [1]. I did not know on which talk page to put it, so I just put it on the talk page of the subject article. If I need to move it elsewhere, please, let me know. I will add my evidence to RfC later on today. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, I am sorry for posting on your talk page again, but please, let me know whether I can proceed posting my comments under RFC I opened on Talk:Safavid dynasty or not. Khodabandeh14 raised a point above that I cannot do so, but then how do I provide my comments/references to RfC? Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, please continue to participate in the RfC at Talk:Safavid dynasty. I am allowing it in spite of your topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have responded in detail to each point of Atabey in a separate thread [2]. You might wonder why the response is long. Note my long response has to do with the fact that sometimes one needs overwhelming numbers of sources to get some points across that WP:RS sources cannot be ignored. Also most readers in Wikipedia are not expected to know anything about Safavid history. Anyhow, the user has been topic banned from several articles but I will assume good faith. The fact is that with the exception of User:Folantin and User:Kansas Bear, I do not see any long term member who can understand these points. In actuality, readers do not need to understand everything as Wikipedia is about establish RS sources, weight, neutrality, no OR, no syntheis and not really arguing over the contents. Anyhow, I just ask you to keep an eagle eye on the talkpage and behaviour. Also I might take a 1 week break next week (or the check article much less), so my lack of response should not be intrepreted as I have forgotten the article. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, please continue to participate in the RfC at Talk:Safavid dynasty. I am allowing it in spite of your topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, I am sorry for posting on your talk page again, but please, let me know whether I can proceed posting my comments under RFC I opened on Talk:Safavid dynasty or not. Khodabandeh14 raised a point above that I cannot do so, but then how do I provide my comments/references to RfC? Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Just an update, I have asked User:Folantin to mediate. If he does mediation, I hope you keep an eye on. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, while I understand the desire to resolve editorial disputes through RfC, a number of concerns appear here. First of all, I agreed to all your points and opened an RFC, I am demonstrating good faith providing only references in support of my opinion without commenting on users, read and listen to everything that the opposite side says, and based on those provided a Proposal section in the RfC. But for some reason, instead of discussing the proposal and observations, the focus in the RFC is for some reason on why I behave certain way or use certain references, accusing me of tendentious editing with words like "he makes an WP:OR that the name Iran was not used by Safavids", "concensus cannot be reached with such an attitude", "I find it completely unacceptable to delete sources such as Roger Savory" when no one actually suggested doing so. Could you please, advise the contributor to at least demonstrate interest in reaching an agreement via RfC?
- From my perspective, there is no fundamental disagreement in the proposal that I made so far. The only disagreement is whether "of Iran" or "Iranian" attachments should remain. To justify my point, and listening to the opinion about general Google search, today, I provided Google Books search result, which shows over 5,000 references without word "Iran/Iranian" when referring to Safavid Empire, and only 53 results with inclusion of those. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please continue to show your patience by not coming here every 10 seconds. If Khodabandeh14 reveals a bad attitude to the RfC, that could play a role if admins have to review the situation again. You can win by behaving better. (And by having better content arguments). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Ed, overall I agree with the comments made by Folantin in regards to the RfC. They (along with subsequent introduction edits) seem to address most of my major concerns in opening the RfC as well as in lengthy talk page discussions. And I would like thank Folantin for helping to sort this out. In his last point, he said that it would be good to expand on the legacy section, and to discuss the impact of Safavids on regional history. I can add some material on that to Safavid page, if I am permitted to do so. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
quick example for Ed
Dear Ed, I am giving the RfC a chance, but the issue is technical, and I think ardous mediation is the best path. But we can try RfC for now. However, RfC requires someone with knowledge of the period. Rather, I suggested mediation from the beginning and I hope just like the RfC condition you put on Atabey, the same can be put on mediation, if RfC fails. Here is an example of why I believe mediation is necessary. Atabey calls Richard Frye: "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history". He then makes unrelated commentary to Richard Frye's statement which I have responded to here: [3]. Note in order to show his unrelated comment, I am forced to go through the work of Richard Frye and show a contradiction. This could have been avoided had Atabey finished reading the article he is quoting. Now what does Atabey think of this statement: Richard Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", second impression, Phoenix Press, December 2003 "None the less Iran was torn by internal struggles until the sixteenth century, when again, as under the Achaemenids and the Sasanians, Iran rose to imperial greatness -- this time not so much foreign conquest but in the unification of Iran politically, culturally and religiously under the Safavids" (pg 4) (I can provide a scan of this page if necessary but it is readable enoughin google books [4]. Is he willing to accept an author whom he has referenced as "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history", and who directlys contradicts all the major observations Atabey has mentioned? Rather, past experience in the talkpage has shown that unfortunately, such statements are ignored. I consider this to be: Tendentious editing. However if Atabey accepts this statement of the scholar whom he has called; "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history", then I will take back my point and have a more positive view of RfC. On the side note, the google books argument is responded to here: [5] (the top word is "Safavid Iran" and also "Safavid empire" is not contradictory). Thank you, and I am just asking to focus on this small point, is Atabey willing to accept this statement of Richard Frye which I just brought, and whom he has called "one of the most distinguished..". If not, then I am not going to continue with RfC and will seek mediation/arbcomm. If so, then I will change my attitude. Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Shortening sections
Hi, I just wanted to bring out many sources as possible. One optinion for me is to collapse/expand sections, but I am not sure what the tags for that were.. YOu used it once, It may help a lot in this case. Thank you.. The problem with RfC is that unless users are aware of all these sources, they make think the argument of Atabey is actually based on the source he is citing. It is really not, you can see this in my latest post on google books or Richard Frye. So if you can show me how I can make expand/collapse sections, it will help greatly. Else, I can move it to talkpage and then point the users to this point, that point and etc...Or another option is to create a separate space in the talkpage with your permission. I do not think there is anyway around quoting about 50 sources or so? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- The current page at Talk:Safavid dynasty is already up to 280 Kbytes, which is enormous. I really think you should create subpages in your user space, and link to them if needed. Using collapse boxes does not reduce the size of a page in bytes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- OKay I will move a large part to my subpage...With your permission is it possible to create a subpage in the talkpage of the article itself? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I'll move it to archive 12... --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good solution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed, I cut the data in half. I know it is still a lot, but for each point, I brought lots of sources and then made my comments. Also if you have time, just please read : [6] (quick example for Ed). Out of the thousands of kilo-byte, I wanted to highligh this pararaph and why even though I support RfC, I am sort of pessimistic by the outcome (although I hope I am wrong). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, I am taking a one week vacation that I had planned for. I rather not worry about wikipedia either. So I have asked Atabey to put a proposal for the introduction incorporating the high quality WP:RS sources I have mentioned. I just wanted to ask you to keep an eye on the page. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I'll move it to archive 12... --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- OKay I will move a large part to my subpage...With your permission is it possible to create a subpage in the talkpage of the article itself? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am glad this is progressing towards consensus, thanks to Folantin. Just as a note, I have a chance to check Wiki only few times a day, so if you have something urgent needing my attention, feel free to post on my talk page. I will most likely start developing the subpage under my userspace with some suggestions for legacy part as well. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not think the issue was about concensus as rather getting a third expert opinion as Ed outlined. The third opinion is posted on the talkpage. I also agree that the legacy section (which I had no comments upon) can be expanded for sure. Thanks again to Folantin for resolving the issues. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since the introduction is more or less acceptable with exception of lack of Azeri Latin spelling, I think we can move on to discussing and improving other parts. What I am waiting to hear from EdJohnston, is whether I am allowed now to contribute to the article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well there is a legacy section in the article, you can propose your statements in the talkpage, if Folantin accepts, then someone will insert it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since the introduction is more or less acceptable with exception of lack of Azeri Latin spelling, I think we can move on to discussing and improving other parts. What I am waiting to hear from EdJohnston, is whether I am allowed now to contribute to the article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Undid my edit per your request, but I still have questions
Hi Ed, I'm not sure I count as an experienced wikipedia editor yet, but I'm begining to feel like I'm getting there :)
You suggested I undo an edit I had made to an 'arbitration archive' page. Presume you mean this [1] ? - sorry for the clunky formatting I've never tried linking to a 'diff' before. As you can see I have followed your suggestion (I think? I hope this is what you meant - I don't think I've been to any other arbitration page before).
The reason I wrote the comment (now removed) is that I arrived on that arbitration page by trying to find more editting guidlines for how to edit things relating to the troubles. I was on the page Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_II's_visit_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland and saw the template {{Troubles restriction}} which contains this text
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
OK so now in hindsight it appears that the template probably needs a different target to the one in that link. I looked at the page I editted though - and though it's obviously pretty much all about some chap a few years ago and whether he's allowed to edit things or not - I assumed that was all related to 'the troubles active arbitration' but had not yet been archived away from that page.
I saw the line that says this 'Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. ' and also this 'Comments are very welcome on the Talk page' and I made my edit on the Talk page - not on the main article.
I've still got 3 questions
- Why does that arbitration page not have a line saying 'this is now a completed arbitration - and this an archive'?
- Why does the {{Troubles restriction}} template redirect there?
- Why on the page Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_II's_visit_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland can I not see my edits unless I am logged in?
Hope you can help EdwardLane (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just noticed that the template has 'active arbitration remedies' linked to this page too EdwardLane (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here are my answers to your numbered points:
- The case message 'Comments are very welcome on the talk page' makes no sense after the case is closed. Maybe the Arbcom clerks should create new template to address that situation.
- The arb pages are not very user-friendly, but that is the usual way that remedies are linked. I am hoping to get consensus to reorganize the Troubles log of blocks and bans, and if I do so, there could be a better summary at the top.
- Regarding your edits at the royal visit talk page, I'm unclear on what you were seeing. In general, since you have an account, you should log in to leave comments.
- For general information about Arbcom, see WP:ARBCOM and WP:Guide to arbitration. Questions about what remedies are currently in effect could be addressed to WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here are my answers to your numbered points:
- Hello, sorry I've not got back to you earlier I got distracted. Anyway thanks for the feedback - unfortunately I've failed (so far) to find my way around the WP:Administrators' noticeboard but thanks very much for pointing me at it (I didn't even know it existed). So my comments above are still in limbo :( I'll go have another look EdwardLane (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Just to let you know I made a change to the template (I moved where the link was piped from) that resolved some of my issues.
But some of the other issues I raised here are still unresolved and I don't know where to ask about them. I'm hoping you can help - any idea where I should ask about adding standard rules for changing the text at the top of pages for closed arbitrations?
Sorry to be a bother EdwardLane (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know
The only person that, from time to time, returns to disrupt [7] and to try to introduce the same POV. Notice how he's the only one always edit warring over this in years! All of the other editors never opposed or challenged the current stable version for months, because oh well, there's nothing controversial there. Only in his mind.
I just leave this message so you know. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that the recent IP edit looks to be a sock of Corticopia. Since the North America article has had a lot of IP vandalism lately, and since other admins have protected since my last action, I've put back the long-term semiprotection. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed for your patience and commitment as an administrator. As you already know, I'm very familiar with Corticopia's edit pattern and user behaviour. I recently noticed one of his sockpuppets returned to edit after a loooong break:
- Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- As usual, consistent edit pattern in Canada, Quebec, Dominion, Cyprus, Georgia (country), Turkey, Europe (trying to impose the POV that Europe ends in the Carpatus), North America (trying to exclude Mexico from it), Central America, Latin America, Eurasia, Continent (excluding other continental models, prefer name Australia over Oceania), Americas, and geeky Battlestar Galatica-related topics.
- I also have the feeling that other two socks that a former checkuser ruled "had nothing to do with Corticopia" (only because their IP were different... hello proxy server or VPN), will show up in North America-related articles since you imposed a semi-protection there. I think he's trying to auto-validate himself as being a different person [8]. I have always been pretty sure they are the same person but, oh well... time will prove me right. I do believe in WP:DUCK. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do not agree with you that Chipmunkdavis is Corticopia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I also have the feeling that other two socks that a former checkuser ruled "had nothing to do with Corticopia" (only because their IP were different... hello proxy server or VPN), will show up in North America-related articles since you imposed a semi-protection there. I think he's trying to auto-validate himself as being a different person [8]. I have always been pretty sure they are the same person but, oh well... time will prove me right. I do believe in WP:DUCK. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Esoglou violating editing restriction
Esoglou is editing once more on Orthodox theology [9]. Esoglou again has completely misrepresented the Eastern Orthodox position. It is this type of behavior that is causing the conflict between Esoglou and various editors on wikipedia.[10] The source clearly states that the term Palamism which is the name of the article is rejected by at least one Eastern Orthodox theologian as a made up thing by detractors of Eastern Orthodox theology. Esoglou has posted incoherent nonsense that obfuscates the very direct and simple point of the theologian. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Pseudo-Richard's edit here. Ancient Faith Radio appears to be produced by people espousing the Orthodox point of view, though they are not theologians. Per his editing restriction, Esoglou should not edit what Orthodox people are saying. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- What edit did I make about the teaching or practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church? If some Eastern Orthodox writer who is considered a reliable source says LoveMonkey is the handsomest man in the world, I think I am free to insert a sourced statement of that writer's opinion. It is not about the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching or practice. :)
- Seriously, what I edited or rather restored was a statement that a certain Eastern Orthodox writer "has objected to the term 'Palamism' on the grounds that, he alleges, the term was coined by 'Roman Catholic thinkers' to give a longstanding Orthodox doctrine an 'exotic label', turning it into an 'historically conditioned "-ism" in order to justify their heresy." This statement about "Roman Catholic thinkers" is not about the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching or practice. Writing a few days ago about this precise matter above, LoveMonkey said that it is a Roman Catholic, not an Eastern Orthodox matter: "I can not comment on articles that are Roman Catholic theology based (i.e. Palamism is Roman Catholic as no Greek or Eastern Theologians from the East use such a term in their works, only Western EO converts or Roman Catholic theologians do)." LoveMonkey objected above to you about Dbachmann's removal of what Clark Carlton said about Roman Catholic thinkers. Now he is objecting to my keeping in the article this statement, which he himself has described as "Roman Catholic theology based", but which was originally inserted in the article by himself.
- I am perfectly happy with Pseudo-Richard's edit, apart, that is, from the grammatical error, which I have corrected in my quotation of it here, and I hope that nobody tries to remove it. By the way, Clark Carlton is a theologian, and has a Ph.D. in the subject, a fact that Pseudo-Richard seems to want to play down. An ex-Baptist, he is now an Eastern Orthodox. But I consider that a secondary matter. The essential thing is that his statement, which I am keeping in the article, is about Roman Catholic "thinkers" (he refuses to call them theologians). Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I wasn't trying to "play down" the fact that Clark Carlton has a Ph.D. I just didn't know it and so I thought "theologian" was too grandiose a term for a talk-show host. I'm OK to use "theologian" now that I know he has a Ph.D. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- If it would make LoveMonkey happy to restore the article to how it was before Dbachmann first removed Carlton's statement, the removal to which he objected above, I would have no objection whatever to having it restored to that situation. Esoglou (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clark Carlton is a radio presenter for the EO point of view. In fact, the restriction lets LoveMonkey (not Esoglou) add 'Eastern Orthodox commentary'. It doesn't say it has to be by a theologian. I don't see how this allows Esoglou to edit statements about what Clark Carlton says. Carlton is commenting from the EO point of view, even though he may be criticizing what Roman Catholic theologians say. The original edit by Esoglou is trying to rephrase what Clark Carlton says. I believe that is outside Esoglou's jurisdiction. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- And just to be clear... the point isn't whether Esoglou was right or wrong in his edit. The point is that we are all tired of the editwars between LM and Esoglou with the accompanying snide and uncivil edit summaries. What's needed is that both of them develop a reflex of going to the Talk Page and airing any issues with other editors who can then address the problem if there is a consensus for it. None of this would be necessary if the two of them followed WP:BRD. Oh, and civil discussion is the "D" in BRD. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, that was not the "original" edit. That edit was a partial undoing of an edit by Dbachmann, who had moved Carlton's statement from the lead to another position, had presented the statement by Carlton (a single Eastern Orthodox theologian/commentator) as by a plural "some Orthodox commentators", had falsely attributed to Carlton the phrase "the true theology of St. Gregory Palamas", and had removed what Carlton gave as his view about the inventiveness of Roman Catholic thinkers. Richard, you certainly can't say I failed to discuss the matter on the Talk Page. We had a rather long discussion about it. All those discussing the matter on the Talk Page agreed that, in spite of Dbachmann's removal of it, the Carlton statement should be kept. LoveMonkey chose not to join the discussion. And, by the way, I like the latest edit concerning the Carlton statement, this time by Phatius, just as I liked Richard's latest edit. I am happy with what the article now says on the matter, just as I was happy with what it said before this discussion began. If LoveMonkey wishes to intervene, let him choose, as far as I am concerned, between the two formulations. Esoglou (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Esoglou, what I meant was that, even after consensus appears to have been reached on the Talk Page, you should not take it upon yourself to implement the consensus if there is any chance that your edit would be perceived as violating the editing restriction. Let someone else do it. I say this with love. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and hold your contributions to Wikipedia in high esteem. However, your interaction style with a number of editors (LoveMonkey being only one of them) is so contentious that you run the risk of being blocked for a long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. I do not want to see that happen. You are not the only one who sees the truth and there are other editors such as Phatius and perhaps myself who can edit without creating quite as much drama as you seem to. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, that was not the "original" edit. That edit was a partial undoing of an edit by Dbachmann, who had moved Carlton's statement from the lead to another position, had presented the statement by Carlton (a single Eastern Orthodox theologian/commentator) as by a plural "some Orthodox commentators", had falsely attributed to Carlton the phrase "the true theology of St. Gregory Palamas", and had removed what Carlton gave as his view about the inventiveness of Roman Catholic thinkers. Richard, you certainly can't say I failed to discuss the matter on the Talk Page. We had a rather long discussion about it. All those discussing the matter on the Talk Page agreed that, in spite of Dbachmann's removal of it, the Carlton statement should be kept. LoveMonkey chose not to join the discussion. And, by the way, I like the latest edit concerning the Carlton statement, this time by Phatius, just as I liked Richard's latest edit. I am happy with what the article now says on the matter, just as I was happy with what it said before this discussion began. If LoveMonkey wishes to intervene, let him choose, as far as I am concerned, between the two formulations. Esoglou (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- And just to be clear... the point isn't whether Esoglou was right or wrong in his edit. The point is that we are all tired of the editwars between LM and Esoglou with the accompanying snide and uncivil edit summaries. What's needed is that both of them develop a reflex of going to the Talk Page and airing any issues with other editors who can then address the problem if there is a consensus for it. None of this would be necessary if the two of them followed WP:BRD. Oh, and civil discussion is the "D" in BRD. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clark Carlton is a radio presenter for the EO point of view. In fact, the restriction lets LoveMonkey (not Esoglou) add 'Eastern Orthodox commentary'. It doesn't say it has to be by a theologian. I don't see how this allows Esoglou to edit statements about what Clark Carlton says. Carlton is commenting from the EO point of view, even though he may be criticizing what Roman Catholic theologians say. The original edit by Esoglou is trying to rephrase what Clark Carlton says. I believe that is outside Esoglou's jurisdiction. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- If it would make LoveMonkey happy to restore the article to how it was before Dbachmann first removed Carlton's statement, the removal to which he objected above, I would have no objection whatever to having it restored to that situation. Esoglou (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I wasn't trying to "play down" the fact that Clark Carlton has a Ph.D. I just didn't know it and so I thought "theologian" was too grandiose a term for a talk-show host. I'm OK to use "theologian" now that I know he has a Ph.D. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
More Excuses for Esoglou. How is this repeated violation of the restrictions time and time again OK? [11] And not to be seen as frustrating. To Richard, the restrictions where not put in place according to what you have posted. It is the reinterpreting of them every time Esoglou violates them that causes the comments, stop deflecting the blame. I have not opened a complaint on the discussion admin boards here, however Esoglou sure did once he thought I had violated these restrictions. It is the hypocrisy, time and time again that has driven me to post my responses. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh... according to Phatius McBluff's [[12] interpretation of the edit restriction], it appears that Esoglou from even commenting on Talk Pages about EO views of the Roman Catholic Church. I haven't gone back to read the actual edit restriction so I'm just going to assume good faith and accept Phatius' interpretation for now. If that is true, then what I wrote above about Esoglou raising issues on Talk Pages become inoperative. I'm not convinced such a broad editing restriction is a good idea but, for now, everyone should stick to whatever the editing restriction says. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about we modify the restriction by agreement to allow both parties (Esoglou and LoveMonkey) to participate freely on talk pages. Would anyone object? If they both agree to this change, I think it should be allowed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will agree to lifting that restriction, in this way, as it will not change that Esoglou simply will not stop editing on EO theology and people will continue to cover for him and do nothing to him. This is at least the third time Esoglou has violated these restrictions and as of yet he has not had to have any compromise made of him. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I raised no objection to the proposal to exclude all edits dealing with the teaching and practice of the other church, but LoveMonkey wanted to keep putting in comments about the theology of the church to which he does not belong. I accepted even that exception, which gives LoveMonkey quite a free hand, while today's Roman Catholic theologians are generally free of the sectarian attitude that, instead of presenting positively what it believes, defines itself by what it does not believe but that others supposedly do. In the same way I now raise no objection to freeing the talk pages, while some class of edits or even all edits to certain articles are still to be excluded.
- May I ask as a favour that what we two are to abstain from writing about be defined clearly. "The teaching and practice of the other church" has proved open to elastic interpretations.
- (Before I explain further, may I again point out, this time more or less as an aside, that in making the statement that is discussed above, Carlton does not claim to be expressing Eastern Orthodox teaching. Ex-Baptist Carlton has been faulted by other Eastern Orthodox for not giving a faithful presentation of Eastern Orthodox Church teaching. Indeed, one of the things for which he is faulted is having his book advertised as approved by all jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox Church, "although in fact, the personal opinions of a number of individuals in different jurisdictions were sought and received, nothing more". Not unlike the way some editors here are presenting the personal opinion of the individual called Clark Carlton.)
- Is it proposed that all opinions expressed by Eastern Orthodox theologians are to be out of bounds for me, even if those theologians do not present their opinions as church teachings? For instance, John S. Romanides declares that Greek, not Latin, was the language originally spoken in Rome. Am I to be faulted if I edit an article that includes that statement by Romanides, who happens to be an Eastern Orthodox theologian? Am I forbidden to cite for a fact or opinion that does not concern Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice a writer who happens to have written also on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice? And is LoveMonkey to continue to have the privilege of inserting at will any opinion that pleases him which has been expressed by some individual Eastern Orthodox theologian? Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- "At will" does not ignore the rule that those opinions that the privileged editor chooses (while eliminating at will, if they do not please him, opinions expressed by theologians of the same church - even some declared at the reliable sources noticeboard to be reliable sources, as in this example) must be then presented in a certain manner, i.e., as opinions - opinions, however, that are then seen as "teaching or practice". Esoglou (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, my primary interest here is in keeping the troubled peace (such as it is) between LoveMonkey and Esoglou. A truce which is marred by ceasefire violations is nonetheless a truce as long as open hostilities do not break out. Thus, as much as there is continued sniping and complaints of edit restriction violations, at least we have not had the open edit-warring which is truly detrimental to the project. I would wish for more collegiality and collaboration and less incivility than we've been seeing lately but Rome was not built in a day.
- Re Carlton: The link provided by Esoglou that criticizes Carlton does not seem relevant to the quote cited in the article. AFAICT, that quote DOES represent the majority view of the Orthodox Church. The sentiment in it is a widespread sentiment among Orthodox theologians (though perhaps not an official teaching of the Orthodox Church). As such, Esoglou should leave it alone even though it is an opinion of Orthodox Christians about what the Roman Catholic Church believes or teaches. Contrary to what Taiwan boi asserts, I see this as a gray area because I can understand Esoglou's desire to correct what he believes to be an erroneous understanding of what the Catholic Church believes. Nonetheless, it is ultimately an Orthodox understanding (or misunderstanding) and Esoglou should let it alone.
- Here are my proposed responses to Esoglou's questions:
- Q: Is it proposed that all opinions expressed by Eastern Orthodox theologians are to be out of bounds for me, even if those theologians do not present their opinions as church teachings?
- A: Yes. I propose that you be allowed to discuss all text related to Church teachings and opinions by Orthodox theologians but that you be restricted from editing any such text with the exception of BLP violations or other serious infractions of Wikipedia policy.
- Q: For instance, John S. Romanides declares that Greek, not Latin, was the language originally spoken in Rome. Am I to be faulted if I edit an article that includes that statement by Romanides, who happens to be an Eastern Orthodox theologian?
- A: If this declaration is made in the context of a theological or ecclesiological discussion, then the answer is "Yes. Stay away from editing the text." Romanides is not a historian, he is a theologian who engages in polemics. It is your tendency to engage in original research by directly challenging primary sources that has gotten you into trouble. The editing restriction is meant to keep you out of future occurrences of such trouble.
- Q: Is LoveMonkey to continue to have the privilege of inserting at will any opinion that pleases him which has been expressed by some individual Eastern Orthodox theologian?
- A: Not necessarily "at will". In the past, you have taken it upon yourself to be the "guardian of the truth" who corrects the egregious errors committed by LoveMonkey. Unfortunately, the contentiousness which has resulted from these efforts have led to edit-warring and incivility which has been deemed unacceptable by just about everyone involved including Phatius McBluff and myself. I think Phatius and I have generally been supportive of your point of view but we are not supportive of your contentiousness. All we are asking is that you bring your concerns to the group and let other editors correct the problems introduced by LoveMonkey. We are making the same request of LoveMonkey with respect to the problems he sees in your edits. No more edit-warring between the two of you. Period. It really has to stop or we will have to stop one or both of you via a block or a ban. (An outcome which I would very much like to avoid.)
- --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lest I be misunderstood, I wish to clarify my earlier comment. What I wrote above is sharply critical of Esoglou. That is because the discussion is with Esoglou and about his past behavior and restrictions on his future behavior. However, it takes two to tango. LoveMonkey has been at least contentious as Esoglou and has engaged in edit warring and incivility as well. What I wrote above doesn't focus on his behavior because that is not the topic at hand. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, in this case my undoing of Dbachmann's edit was not "correcting an egregious error committed by LoveMonkey", and I did not see it as making any comment by me on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice. Should the wording of the restriction be adjusted somewhat? Or instead, would it be simpler and clearer if LoveMonkey and I agreed to make no edit whatever to some list of articles that you or someone else could add to as necessary? We could agree that, if I violated that restriction, even by mistake, I would make a donation of, say, three hundred United States dollars (or more or less, as agreed), to any Eastern Orthodox charity that LoveMonkey would name, and if he violated it, even by mistake, he would make the same donation to a Roman Catholic charity named by me. Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- As far as the donations to charities are concerned, far be it from me to discourage such activity but I think we should focus less on enforcement via penalties and rely instead on a gentleman's agreement which is enforced by moral suasion and an honest willingness to recognize mistakes, apologize for them and to forgive them. (If you're a believer in WWJD?, I think you would see that this is the way to go.) The idea of creating a list of verboten articles is (sorry) a Catholic approach. It requires a bureaucracy to create a list and then maintain it as we discover new articles that belong under the restriction. The spirit of the restriction is clear even if the specific interpretation is not. As long as we take the "gentleman's agreement" approach of admonishing violations and "not making a big deal out of them", I think we are better off than if we spend a lot of effort Wikilawyering over which articles fall under the restriction and which specific text falls under it.
- I myself tend to agree with you over the innocuousness of your reverting of Dbachmann's edit but, since other parties seem to care, I would counsel you to just stay as far away from the delineation as possible. I can't believe we've spent this much time discussing an edit. Christians love to dispute over small issues. So do Wikipedians. Christian Wikipedians discussing Christian issues? That, it seems to me, is the definition of hell.
- --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Esoglou can't see that his undoing of Dbachmann's edit violated his editing restriction:
It seems to me that most others *do* see it as a violation. I don't know where to go from here. Carlton is an EO proponent, and even if he was alleging that Catholics believe in pink elephants, Esoglou should not have been changing any sentences which present Carlton's views. It would be Esoglou's role to point out any problems he perceives with Carlton to others, so they can decide if it needs fixing. The editing restriction won't work if Esoglou can't understand it, but I don't see what is so difficult. I am on the point of proposing a sanction of Esoglou. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Well, in this case my undoing of Dbachmann's edit was not "correcting an egregious error committed by LoveMonkey", and I did not see it as making any comment by me on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice.
- I have an idea that you, Ed, have been wanting to do so for more than just the last couple of days. While I do certainly accept Richard's suggestion to me, I did think that it was just possible that my request for a clearer enunciation of the restriction might get a response. It seems that I was mistaken. Any decision on the talk-page question? Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do I have to repeat that I have no problems with Carlton - quite the contrary - and that I was only restoring what Carlton said, an action that I am told I should not do and so a decision I must accept? My problem was not with Carlton, but with Dbachmann's removal of what Carlton said. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give me the bottom line? Are you agreeing not to modify sentences which present Carlton's views in the future? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am. Unhesitatingly so, since what is decisive in Wikipedia is the consensus of those involved, not the opinion of any one of them, regardless of rank. There is consensus that, whatever anyone else says is Carlton's view, even presenting it as belief in pink elephants, I am not to touch what is said of his view. I take it that you will not in response to my queries make any clarifying modification of the restriction on editing article pages. Have you decided to modify what the restriction says about talk-page discussions? Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Regarding talk pages, you need to tell us your decision. If you agree that both you and LM should be allowed to use talk pages freely, I will make the change in the restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I thought you had read what I wrote, "I now raise no objection to freeing the talk pages", just before I asked "as a favour that what we two are to abstain from writing about be defined clearly". Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. Per this edit, and by agreement of the parties I changed the editing restriction so that you and LoveMonkey are free to discuss these matters on Talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I thought you had read what I wrote, "I now raise no objection to freeing the talk pages", just before I asked "as a favour that what we two are to abstain from writing about be defined clearly". Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Regarding talk pages, you need to tell us your decision. If you agree that both you and LM should be allowed to use talk pages freely, I will make the change in the restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am. Unhesitatingly so, since what is decisive in Wikipedia is the consensus of those involved, not the opinion of any one of them, regardless of rank. There is consensus that, whatever anyone else says is Carlton's view, even presenting it as belief in pink elephants, I am not to touch what is said of his view. I take it that you will not in response to my queries make any clarifying modification of the restriction on editing article pages. Have you decided to modify what the restriction says about talk-page discussions? Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give me the bottom line? Are you agreeing not to modify sentences which present Carlton's views in the future? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do I have to repeat that I have no problems with Carlton - quite the contrary - and that I was only restoring what Carlton said, an action that I am told I should not do and so a decision I must accept? My problem was not with Carlton, but with Dbachmann's removal of what Carlton said. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have an idea that you, Ed, have been wanting to do so for more than just the last couple of days. While I do certainly accept Richard's suggestion to me, I did think that it was just possible that my request for a clearer enunciation of the restriction might get a response. It seems that I was mistaken. Any decision on the talk-page question? Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Esoglou can't see that his undoing of Dbachmann's edit violated his editing restriction:
- Well, in this case my undoing of Dbachmann's edit was not "correcting an egregious error committed by LoveMonkey", and I did not see it as making any comment by me on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice. Should the wording of the restriction be adjusted somewhat? Or instead, would it be simpler and clearer if LoveMonkey and I agreed to make no edit whatever to some list of articles that you or someone else could add to as necessary? We could agree that, if I violated that restriction, even by mistake, I would make a donation of, say, three hundred United States dollars (or more or less, as agreed), to any Eastern Orthodox charity that LoveMonkey would name, and if he violated it, even by mistake, he would make the same donation to a Roman Catholic charity named by me. Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration renewed discussion
I am sorry that a bot archived this discussion page so now perhaps we might face a difficulty in communication due to the back and forth reading of pages. Anyway, i had some time to think about your comment and think i did. It was somewhat difficult for me to respond timely so i failed to avoid archiving, which i haven't even thought of in the first place. But, there's not much i can do about it now, i think, then express my regrets for the situation. Now about the reason for this renewal of discussion: what else would it be than the same issue as before - the sanction you imposed upon me. Of course, you may think. So here what i was thinking. And thought through, i think. :-) In your comment you gave me an impression that you are not completely sure about the reasons you imposed your sanctions. Why not sure - because you stated that you "don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind this case". But if you don't see a need, that doesn't mean there isn't any, right? I am not trying intentionally to catch in you some syllogistic trap, trust me, i am just trying to convey my case - of course - what else. Also, in your comment why are you describing the conditions of the deal - the deal as you named it. I honestly don't understand whether there is any other purpose for this than to emphasize your previous decision. It is because i don't find the deal any different than the sanction already imposed upon me i.e. my account. I might have missed something, though. Since this ruling of yours is important to me currently because it affects my edits, i would like you not to interpret my words as anything else but good faith. I understand we might have exchanged some fiery thoughts - but that could change, i think. On my behalf, i can say i was unpleasantly surprised, and therefore quite disturbed by the lack of your willingness to perceive the things from my perspective. I say the lack, because i perceive it as such - it's not necessary a true lack. Anyway, i would like you to "re-analyze the evidence behind this case", because i most sincerely believe i was wrongfully accused and therefore unjustly judged upon. I might be mistaken in my belief but please do point me, where these mistakes might be. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your ban from editing articles related to Kosovo expires on 30 July, 2011. If you feel it essential to return to those articles sooner, you can file an appeal at WP:Arbitration enforcement by using the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. If not satisfied with the response there, you can appeal to Arbcom. The last time we discussed this was at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 21#Arbitration. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the options which you presented, and i believe you understand you were clear with this before. Also i know when and where before my previous post at your discussion page, exactly was it that we discussed this. What i am doing is examining my options with you. I would like you to answer the only question i asked in my previous comment here. I will rephrase it: If you don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind the case, does this mean that there is no need at all? Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have chosen not to lift your ban myself. You are still welcome to appeal to WP:AE and to Arbcom. If you go to AE, the evidence behind the original ban will most likely be reviewed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I surely understand your decision. But what i don't understand is whether you have reviewed the evidence after my appeal to you. And if you haven't, i honestly wonder how come that my most recent comments had not raised any doubts in your decisiveness regarding your decision? Because in my opinion you were stating your own opinions on my history of edits and with that, some stance of mine - opinions which you gave somewhat too promptly in the very arbitration case itself. Opinions which are, in my own and personal opinion, also somewhat too personal - because of the lack of expressed arguments to support them - opinions as this one is: "I hope that Biblbroks will soon add his own response so we can see if he is open to changing his approach to Kosovo-related articles." Regardless of other editors' (except the plaintiff's) comments involved in the arbitration case you opinionated that i had an approach to Kosovo-related articles. An approach i should be open to change - as i understand. What would that approach be, i ask you. And why do you mention the Kosovo-related articles in plural - do you know of any other case of my edits to some other Kosovo-related articles which reflect an approach of mine that ought to change? Of course, any other edits apart from the same edits to the Kosovo article itself - edits which are currently a matter of discussion, and dispute. I mean, what i am asking you is: were there any such edits recently at least - recently as in a year ago or sooner. That is, if you investigated further than that period, i am certain that you might find some of my previous edits that might appear to someone as "me having an approach", but only if you assumed that my knowledge of English language had been perfect. Which it wasn't and still isn't as i am not a native speaker, and therefore i might have some preconceptions about meanings and usage of words and syntagmas in this language. Anyway, i believe i am improving those skills of mine. Looking forward to your reply with sincere regards to you, --biblbroks (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing more to discuss. As stated above, I've decided not to lift the ban. Please pursue the other options. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Before this thread closes, I will repeat the offer I made previously. If you agree to the following four things, I will lift the ban:
- Observe 1RR/week in the future on all articles related to Kosovo
- Not modify any interwiki links on articles related to Kosovo
- You will try to ensure strict political neutrality for any edits you make to Kosovo-related articles
- You won't make any controversial changes without first getting consensus on the talk page.
- If you want me to follow up, please reply yes or no as to whether you will accept these conditions, for the period between now and July 30. EdJohnston (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it might be interesting, also to someone other than me, how you changed your mind about not ending the discussion and how you thought that it was obvious that you were decisive about your decision not to lift the ban although you continued the discussion. And that you did exactly by repeating the same statement about your decision with the exception of only one (i think) new information about your statement of inexistence of substance for further discussion. The statement which proved wrong when you gave a new comment where you stated the conditions of your offer. But you haven't answered any of my questions.Since i sincerely want to deal with the issue with you personally, i have a question which i like you to answer: what makes you think that previously i haven't tried to ensure strict political neutrality for any of my edits to Kosovo-related articles? Please, show me the diff to one such edit i made in the past year. Also, as it might be an issue in the future, i wish to inform you that i might have violated the sanction you imposed upon me. If i remember correctly two edits might fall into this category of being controversial regarding Kosovo's statehood (or Kosovo-related in general), and those would be these:- one edit to article Atifete Jahjaga regarding an information about the first case of such presidency
- one edit to article Television in Kosovo regarding an unexplained edit by anonymous user (which might be valid though)
- I hope we will continue to discuss this issue and, even more, that we will resolve it. Sincerely, --biblbroks (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am closing this discussion with you, since you have not replied yes or no to my offer to unban you, subject to conditions. (See the four numbered points above). Please pursue your options elsewhere. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, if I understand correctly, you are closing the discussion because I haven't replied to your yes or no offer. But on the other hand you haven't replied to my yes or no questions either. So it seems to me that from the start I had no options but to subdue to your offer or nothing - as if it was either to reply yes to your offer or pursue other options that don't include you. Do you think that discussing the preconceptions, which you might have had before you decided to accept the arbitration case, cannot help resolve this issue? If you don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind the case of arbitration, does that mean there isn't any need to re-analyze the evidence behind the case? Please answer at least one question. Or at least this one: do you think that I should have some further sanctions imposed upon me because of the edits I mentioned previously? Thank you for reading this. Regards, --Слободан Kovačević (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I wanted to say that I found out that I can reply yes to your offer but only partially - and that to the third condition of ensuring political neutrality. So, I promise I will try very hard to ensure strict political neutrality for any edits I make regarding Kosovo. Although I think I already did, I promise will try even harder - even after the topic ban passes of course. I hope you understand that I cannot agree to other conditions of your offer, exactly because I hope we can discuss this issue further - especially the interwikis (which I think are essential to this or even the only thing). Of course, that is under condition that you think it is possible to discuss this issue with me at all. Anyway, I think I am already conforming to the topic ban - unless you think otherwise. Regards again, --Слободан Kovačević (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am closing this discussion with you, since you have not replied yes or no to my offer to unban you, subject to conditions. (See the four numbered points above). Please pursue your options elsewhere. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Before this thread closes, I will repeat the offer I made previously. If you agree to the following four things, I will lift the ban:
- There is nothing more to discuss. As stated above, I've decided not to lift the ban. Please pursue the other options. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I surely understand your decision. But what i don't understand is whether you have reviewed the evidence after my appeal to you. And if you haven't, i honestly wonder how come that my most recent comments had not raised any doubts in your decisiveness regarding your decision? Because in my opinion you were stating your own opinions on my history of edits and with that, some stance of mine - opinions which you gave somewhat too promptly in the very arbitration case itself. Opinions which are, in my own and personal opinion, also somewhat too personal - because of the lack of expressed arguments to support them - opinions as this one is: "I hope that Biblbroks will soon add his own response so we can see if he is open to changing his approach to Kosovo-related articles." Regardless of other editors' (except the plaintiff's) comments involved in the arbitration case you opinionated that i had an approach to Kosovo-related articles. An approach i should be open to change - as i understand. What would that approach be, i ask you. And why do you mention the Kosovo-related articles in plural - do you know of any other case of my edits to some other Kosovo-related articles which reflect an approach of mine that ought to change? Of course, any other edits apart from the same edits to the Kosovo article itself - edits which are currently a matter of discussion, and dispute. I mean, what i am asking you is: were there any such edits recently at least - recently as in a year ago or sooner. That is, if you investigated further than that period, i am certain that you might find some of my previous edits that might appear to someone as "me having an approach", but only if you assumed that my knowledge of English language had been perfect. Which it wasn't and still isn't as i am not a native speaker, and therefore i might have some preconceptions about meanings and usage of words and syntagmas in this language. Anyway, i believe i am improving those skills of mine. Looking forward to your reply with sincere regards to you, --biblbroks (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have chosen not to lift your ban myself. You are still welcome to appeal to WP:AE and to Arbcom. If you go to AE, the evidence behind the original ban will most likely be reviewed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the options which you presented, and i believe you understand you were clear with this before. Also i know when and where before my previous post at your discussion page, exactly was it that we discussed this. What i am doing is examining my options with you. I would like you to answer the only question i asked in my previous comment here. I will rephrase it: If you don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind the case, does this mean that there is no need at all? Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jahlove1234
Hey. I proposed a resolution on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jahlove1234 that involves your block there. If you could chime in, that'd be great. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK with me. I have replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Atabəy and Folantin's talkpage
Hi Ed, I wanted to point out poor user's Folantin page: [13]. It should be noted that the user Folantin has made some clear points and I see no point for user Atabey to continously argue against the point Folantin made with unrelated comments in his talkpage (perhaps so that Folantin will say "whatever"). Folantin's points were very clear and I quote them below:
- "Modern historians refer to the state as "Iran" (or "Persia") and so should we. See for example the title of the book Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire by Andrew Newman (IB Tauris, 2006). (A quick search of Google books under "Safavid" will bring up many other examples). Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France."(Folantin on Safavid talkpage)
- " there is evidence that the state was often called Iran during the Safavid period. ". (Folantin on his talkpage)
- IN response to Atabey in his talkpage: "OK, it's just that most modern English-language historians go with "Safavid Iran" or "Safavid Persia" and Wikipedia should follow what they write. To take a more extreme example, nobody who lived under the Byzantine Empire called it that, but that's the name modern historians generally use, so it's the name of the Wikipedia article." (Folantin in his talkpage)
- "The main point is, Wikipedia goes by what modern historians call it (in this case, "Safavid Iran"). I referred to the "Byzantine Empire" as an "extreme example" of this. It was unlike Iran under the Safavids because nobody at all used the designation "Byzantine Empire" at the time, yet the Wikipedia article goes by the name "Byzantine Empire". In other words, the local or contemporary name of historical states is often completely irrelevant in deciding the names of Wikipedia articles about them." (in his talkpage).
You gave him permission to seek an RfC and the RfC was responded to by a neutral 3rd party who has greatly edited the article in past. So the matter is closed, but if arguments on these closed matters are continued with OR comments, then this is precisely definition tendentious editing, which violates both wikipedia is not battle-ground, and also has been the reason that User:Moreschi has banned authors from AA in certain articles (or even whole topics). Wikipedia is not a [[WP:forum] and not a place for endless arguments on a point that was resolved by RfC. People are free to have their opinion outside of Wikipedia (in weblogs and websites, newspapers and etc), but when they make comments, I persume their goal is to improve Wikipedia article, and discuss the article. If a matter has been resolved by a neutral 3rd party, then there is no point to bringing it up again. Anyhow, I believe the edits Folantin made to the introduction resolved all issues with that regard. Folantin suggested that the legacy section of the article be expanded, and I personally believe that it should be proposed in the talkpage, and then accepted by User Folantin. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ed, I know this might take some time to read, but please read it. If you look at the page, an RfC was requested on controversial issues and a 3rd party User:Folantin addressed all the points as well as edited the introduction [14]. I agreed with all his points which were:
- (a) Folantin: there is no "There is no need for the repetition of "Iran." " which he changed." (I agreed, controversial issue one fixed)
- (b) Folantin: "The name of the article should be "Safavid dynasty" per the equivalent on Encyclopaedia Iranica as well as in line with other Wikipedia pages such as Qajar dynasty." (this was not a controversial issue, and I agree with Folantin, there was no debate))
- (c) Folantin: "Modern historians refer to the state as "Iran" (or "Persia") and so should we. See for example the title of the book Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire by Andrew Newman (IB Tauris, 2006). (A quick search of Google books under "Safavid" will bring up many other examples). Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France" (this was the major point of contention, and Folantin has firmly answered it.)
- But Atabey tries to challange Folantin on this issue, so he goes on to Folantin's page to try to what I consider change the opinion of User:Folantin. However User Folantin replied twice on his talkpage:
- "OK, it's just that most modern English-language historians go with "Safavid Iran" or "Safavid Persia" and Wikipedia should follow what they write. To take a more extreme example, nobody who lived under the Byzantine Empire called it that, but that's the name modern historians generally use, so it's the name of the Wikipedia article" (Folantin's response to Atabey).. Atabey again tries to argue this response:
- "Yes, sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. As you say, there is evidence that the state was often called Iran during the Safavid period. The main point is, Wikipedia goes by what modern historians call it (in this case, "Safavid Iran"). I referred to the "Byzantine Empire" as an "extreme example" of this. It was unlike Iran under the Safavids because nobody at all used the designation "Byzantine Empire" at the time, yet the Wikipedia article goes by the name "Byzantine Empire". In other words, the local or contemporary name of historical states is often completely irrelevant in deciding the names of Wikipedia articles about them. " (Folantin second response on his talkpage)
- So either Atabey accepts the results of the RfC (which you allowed him to partake in) or else this should be considered tendentious editing and permanently banned from regional topics.
- But Atabey tries to challange Folantin on this issue, so he goes on to Folantin's page to try to what I consider change the opinion of User:Folantin. However User Folantin replied twice on his talkpage:
- (d) Folantin point: "As a rider to the above, the introduction should indicate that the Safavid empire at its height did not just include the territory of the modern Islamic Republic of Iran but all, or part, of the territories of the modern states of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Iraq and so on. " ( I added this and there is no contention on this issue)
- (e) Folantin point: "As the title of Newman's book also indicates, there is a general consensus among historians that the Safavid realm was the first time there had been an independent state called "Iran" since the fall of the Sassanid Empire." (again this overlaps with point c, I totally agree, and this was the major issue that Atabey was challenging)
- (f) Folantin point: "The languages in the introduction should be limited to Persian and Azerbaijani, the chief languages of court. The Azerbaijani should be in the Arabic script in use during the Safavid era".(I agree here, and as Folantin suggested the latin alphabet, Kurdish, Georgian and etc. can be put in the footnote. It should be noted that the Roman/Latin alphabet had no currecntly during the Safavid era, and it is totally anachronistic specially with the phonetic that is used in writing it).
- (g) Folantin: "Fussing about the exact ethnic make-up of the Safavids is a waste of time. As far as I can see, it is the normal condition of many, if not most, royal families to be multi-ethnic. " (I totally agreed and change the origin section to "origin and multi-cultural identity of the Safavids")
- (h) Folantin :"Using this fact to try to make the Safavid shahs into either modern ethnic Persians or Azerbaijanis seems to me totally anachronistic and misguided. " (I totally agreed)
- (i) Folantin: "The legacy section should be re-written and should maybe focus on the importance of the Safavids for the modern world. After all, there would be no Islamic Republic of Iran had the Safavids not converted the country to Shi’a Islam. The end of Safavid rule led to a breakdown in the close relationship between “church and state”, which would eventually result in the stand-off between the Pahlavis and the clergy and the end of imperial rule. A similar thing could be done for the importance of the Safavids in Azerbaijani history etc" (This section on Legacy can be expanded for sure, but given the ban on Atabey on editing the article, he needs to propose his wordings and Folantin or someone else can enter it).
So the issue of point c and e, which was confirmed by WP:RS sources, and also confirmed by User:Folantin (four times), in my opinion is being challenged in Folantin's userpage due to red-herring arguments (see the talkpage of Folantin where Atabey assigns his intrepretation to quotes which do not claim what he states) and tendentious editing. If a user has made the same point 4 times, then bothering them with constant comments to change their opinion is in my opinion tendentious editing. Just note also what I wrote here: [15] on a source that Atabey calls "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history". Either the author is distinguished (which means Atabey must accept it as WP:RS) or it shows that "distinguished" is just a word. Please note carefully what I wrote about this source: [16].
Anyhow, as a 3rd party expert user, User:Folantin has addressed all my concern and there is nothing I disagree with. He has done all the relavent edits in the intro. There are two other issues that needs to be implemented based on his proposal: 1) The latin Azeri name, Georgian names, Kurdish, Arabic etc. names as he suggested can be put in the foonote and I agreed. 2) And also the legacy section can be expanded to talk about modern identities and their relations to the Safavids. As long as high quality RS sources are used, then that is no problem from my perspective and that section should be expanded. Note, after 12 pages of archives, 3rd party opinion was needed on some issues (it could have gone to 12000 pages without concensus) and it got resolved. User:Folantin is not from the area, but aware of its history and has contributed to article. He has no bones to pick and his record in wikipedia shows no topic bans, arbcomms, sanctions and etc. So his RfC should be seen as the reason why you let Atabey participate in the article in the first place. All points of it should be implemented and there are only two points left to be implemented. However challenging the result of the RfC from a 3rd party neutral user (in their talkpage) who has made the same point at least four times (points (c) and (e)) is not acceptable behaviour. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- So you are OK with the current first paragraph, and you are OK with putting the Latin Azeri name, the Georgian names, the Kurdish and Arabic names into the footnote. I do not see much likelihood that Atabey will be able to persuade people to change the name of the article. I do not know yet if he will approve the current first paragraph, but I trust that he will respond here. I hope he will agree to having the Azeri etc. names in the footnote. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I am okay with all of that and I accepted all the points made by Folatin. Please note that I am partially Kurdish (from Kermanshah region), and if I wanted to do what I like, then I would also put Kurdish in the intro. But I accepted every single point of Folantin's decision. Also Folantin edited the fist paragraph and it took care of my concern as well. Or for example before, the first word was: "Safavid dynasty of Iran", but Folantin removed the word "Iran" (the issue was discussed and I accepted Folantin's decision). However, there will be no agreement if one side agrees to do change the things they might have been inclined towards and the other side does not. What bothers me though is when a neutral 3rd party user states the same opinion 4 times (on points (c) and (e) above);and yet a user goes in the 3rd parties webpage and tries to argue the same point.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Ed, unfortunately amidst the repetitive books worth of writing by Khodabandeh, it's impossible to trace what and who is writing what on talk pages. As I mentioned the edits and suggestion by Folantin are acceptable to me. And I never suggested to change the name of article, which is currently "Safavid dynasty". And I accept the fact that only Persian and Azerbaijani transliterations show in the introduction (that's what I asked for in first place). The only remaining issue now is that my block needs to be lifted in order for me, per Folantin's suggestion, to start contributing to Legacy section. I kindly ask Khodabandeh to spare from responding to my small paragraph, so that Ed can read it, otherwise, I will have to email this to him. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just for clarification, Folantin did not suggest moving Azeri to footnote, only Kurdish, etc. spellings. Azeri was the language of Safavid court, hence should show along with Persian in introduction. If Khodabandeh complains about alphabet, ok, I will live with having Arabic script, although I don't see the reason for opposing ISO-standardized Latin script for Azeri, I don't want to spend time on this. Would rather focus on other parts of article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is a lot of arguing going on. It seems that Folantin, Khodabandeh and Atabəy all agree on one paragraph. This is good. Azeri *is* showing along with Persian. I assume that is OK. Atabəy, in your RfC you proposed: "a. Rename the article to "Safavid State" (dovlat-e Safavi) or "Safavid Empire"". Are you accepting the current title now? Everyone seems to be OK with removing Kurdish and Georgian spellings, as you proposed in your 'd'. Atabəy, you are not blocked but your ban does not yet allow you to edit the article. If you want to change the Legacy section why don't you make a draft on the article talk page and it can be discussed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- HI, Just clarification. Folantin's suggestion was for the Roman alphabet to be put in the footnote. So I am okay with that, and I am glad everything is resolved. On the legacy section and a paragraph, if Atabey writes it, puts it in the talkpage and it is acceptable, either Folantin or even EdJhonson or even me can put it in the legacy section. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is a lot of arguing going on. It seems that Folantin, Khodabandeh and Atabəy all agree on one paragraph. This is good. Azeri *is* showing along with Persian. I assume that is OK. Atabəy, in your RfC you proposed: "a. Rename the article to "Safavid State" (dovlat-e Safavi) or "Safavid Empire"". Are you accepting the current title now? Everyone seems to be OK with removing Kurdish and Georgian spellings, as you proposed in your 'd'. Atabəy, you are not blocked but your ban does not yet allow you to edit the article. If you want to change the Legacy section why don't you make a draft on the article talk page and it can be discussed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Moving comments
Hi Ed. Can you explain to me why you moved my comments at the AE request [17]? I was NOT making a general comment but rather speaking specifically about what the results should be. As such, my comment should be in the "results" section. If what bothered you was the threaded nature of the comment, I can "star" it for you in order to bring it in line with the format of the other comments in the section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the notice just under the 'Result' heading: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. And where does this notice come from? Is there a format that the ArbCom decided would be followed on AE pages which made the existence of this section to be edited only by uninvolved administrators mandatory? This is an honest question. I just don't see any reason why the "results" section should be limited to "uninvolved administrators". "Uninvolved editors" yes, but there's no reason to draw another thick line of demarcation between admins (and being an admin is a "no big deal") and regular editors who may wish to offer their insight. What's the history of this section? Who decided this? The way I see it, the only reason admins are needed here is because they are the only ones who can implement bans and blocks and discretionary sanctions. But there's nothing about who is included and who is forcibly excluded from the discussion.
- Perhaps the proper course of action would have been to have removed the spurious, discriminatory, and arbitrary "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." notice, rather than my comments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- This was discussed about three months ago, and the present scheme was endorsed by those who gave their opinion. I can't find the archive page but it's around somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you gimme a link? I'd like to see it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- See the discussion in January, 2011 at Template talk:Sanction enforcement request. Uninvolved admins play a particular role at AE since they are the only ones who can close a discussion, per Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you gimme a link? I'd like to see it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- This was discussed about three months ago, and the present scheme was endorsed by those who gave their opinion. I can't find the archive page but it's around somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Rms ARE closure
Hi. Thanks for officially closing out the matter. Do you plan to do a closure synopsis (I don't know exactly what it's called)? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oops I see you did it already. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, again. I wanted to explain that while I was trying to add the above question, I got two edit conflicts, and by the time I posted the question you had already done the ARE closure synopsis (or whatever it is called). I have dial up and my computer's slow anyway. I had to manually delete the actual sample of the synopsis as I was unable to find a way to strike it using the regular markups (<s></s>). I only added it as I did not know what terminology to use to describe it and wanted to show you. (I am sure you have noticed or will notice the transactions on your edit history). Also, the phraseology I used was not meant to be a suggestion of how you would be wording it, just my example. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- BTW: I would like to ask you a question. If you could see your way to emailing me when you have the chance (I updated my Preferences), I'd greatly appreciate it. I would do so but your userpage does not indicate emailing options, unless I am missing something. If you elect not to do so I understand. I hope I am not violating any Wikipedia regulation by making this request. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Per your request, I sent you a mail. The 'e-mail this user' link is in the Toolbox at left, hidden by default on the Vector skin, but easily found in Monobook. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- BTW: I would like to ask you a question. If you could see your way to emailing me when you have the chance (I updated my Preferences), I'd greatly appreciate it. I would do so but your userpage does not indicate emailing options, unless I am missing something. If you elect not to do so I understand. I hope I am not violating any Wikipedia regulation by making this request. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
blocking Routerone and John Foxe
I'm curious why you chose to block these users, considering the edit warring was very stale. It seems to be more punitive than protective, can you exposit on your rationale a bit? tedder (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- If it's a case of long-term warring, the passage of time means less. The fact that Foxe hasn't reverted for 24 hours is not a good prediction that the troubles are over on this article. He was properly notified of the 3RR report and has edited since the notice, but has not replied at the board. Do you think full protection would have been the best response? EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to lean towards full protection, but you are right, it should be seen through the lens of long-term warring, not a specific incident. I think there is a case to be made for blocking the two users and a case to be made against it- no worries. I just wanted to hear some more rationale- thanks! tedder (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to adjust anything, but I was curious as to why the block you gave out was so short. Given his block history for precisely this issue, I would have probably gone for either one month or indefinite.—Kww(talk) 11:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the block could have been longer. No objection if you want to change it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring at Helder Ferreira
You mean reverting this edit. But it was obvoius vandalism for me. User Schweinee restored this rubbish info without providing any reference.--Oleola (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I agree to take a break from the article for seven days.--Oleola (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Template:uw-sanctions
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I need some advice from you, please have a look:[18], I had a big and tedious argument with user:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ(Dungane) over Boxer Rebellion. It will take forever to read through it, but basically, I was advocating implementation of WP Neutrality, and he was:
“ | what I want is for an admin to make clear any kind of unsubstantiated fringe conspiracy theory pushing involving ad hominem attacks of marxism, black panthers, communists, or the chinese government/chinese textbooks is forbidden as off topic on the talk page of the Boxer Rebellion article,ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) | ” |
User Dungane had written more than 10,000 words of argument, mostly consist of personal attacks against me and user John Smith's, and just refuse to calm down to join me on discussion on how to implement WP rules. Since no admin had even care to make any statement on this ANI, let alone any decision, I hereby come here to seek your advice. Arilang talk 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind to reopen this SPI? Another POV-pushing sock of his has recently trolled WT:Norway again. Thank you, Eisfbnore talk 11:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
MB case at AE
Ed, I replied on my talk page. Could you please answer me? Angel670 talk 16:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Answered there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Indirect Accusation?
I hope that your lengthy paragraph concerning Marshall Bagramyan was not an indirect accusation towards me.[19] I clearly outlined the non-neutral websites used for the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre article and made numerous inquiries concerning the self-published book by Leitzinger(which contains the report by van der Leeuw). You will notice I waited a week for clarification concerning the Leitzinger book and it wasn't until I made a motion to remove the non-neutral websites from the article did anyone seem interested in the discussion
I clearly indicated that the non-neutral sources fall under Questionable sources section(being unpublished websites). This was what I posted on the talk page:
- Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- 1.the material is not unduly self-serving;
- 2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
- 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This was categorically ignored.
I, personally, do not have any pre-conceived notions as to whether this was a massacre or not. Whereas, statements such by:
- NovaSkola, "I agree with Azerbaijani users as Massacre is happened and there is no way of denying it.". Reeks of nationalism and racism without bringing anything useful to the discussion. Most likely some off-wiki canvassing.
- Neftchi, "Kansas I certainly hope that you're not here for some kind of revenge against me for my removal of Armenian source in NK war article.". A silly accusation of "revenge" concerning the NK war article that I have never edited!!!
- Neftchi, "For example, if you google "Armenian terrorism" you get hundreds of hits from academic sources, magazines, books, etc. Yet availability of these sources did not stop people from deleting the article on Armenian terrorism, although the information about it is overwhelming.". What exactly does this have to do with the article? Nothing. Simply a ploy to divert attention away from non-neutral sources by attacking a certain ethnic group(ie. "Armenian terrorism").
- Neftchi, "You guys did ignore my comment about abundance of sources on Armenian terrorism and denial of the fact that this term and reality exists, yet you claim the opposite on this talk page.". Another attempt to divert the discussion into an ethnic dispute.
None of these statements did anything to address the numerous non-neutral, and in most cases Azerbaijani government websites/sources.
IF, I am on a side, then you should check out the sXXt storm that was caused when I used Cambridge and Oxford as references stating the Orontids were Persian! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- My remark can hardly be seen as criticism of you since you didn't participate in the AE. I would welcome any civil discussion of the quality of the sourcing. The complaint about MB seemed to be narrowly addressed to the assertion that he used some biased language in describing a source. In my attempt to negotiate with Angel670, who filed the complaint, I was hoping to start a wider discussion and find out what sources ought to be reliable. If you have any ideas for how such a discussion might take place, I would be glad to hear them. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know
Since it's kind of related, you can preview Tofig Kocharli's book, which has been translated into English as Armenian Deception: Historical Information, on Google Books here and decide for yourself on whether his work can pass off as a scholarly source. In my opinion, I don't think generalized phrases like "the degree of Armenian deception is limitless" (bottom of p. 3) are the words of a serious historian. Just some food for thought.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Bakground info
Hello EdJohnston, there is some background info related to previous AE and me, an of-wiki canvassing/meatpuppeting cable has been revealed, and at least one time in the past attempts have been made to get rid of me trough enforcement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- And also, both Sean and Boris are involved in Arab-Israeli conflict articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Correct. - BorisG (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- SD, thanks for the correction about Boris and Sean. I updated my comment at AE. If you are trying to get attention for any off-wiki campaign, either find an on-wiki way to describe the problem in some way that doesn't break any rules, or go through Arbcom. Another option is to ask a checkuser what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I have sent you a mail, I also need your mail to send you more as explained in the message. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- SD, thanks for the correction about Boris and Sean. I updated my comment at AE. If you are trying to get attention for any off-wiki campaign, either find an on-wiki way to describe the problem in some way that doesn't break any rules, or go through Arbcom. Another option is to ask a checkuser what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Correct. - BorisG (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
No record of good behavior? Question.
Do you still stand by this assessment?
"I'm not seeing a record of good behavior, or even innocuous behavior, since the current topic ban was imposed on 2 December"
This is not a continuation of my appeal, but a fair questioning considering you took the liberty of closing the appeal. I personally feel my comments were ignored but I accept the consensus.
Your comments are somewhat confusing because another admin said: I am grateful to Wikifan for contributing positively in the time since he was topic-banned". So who is right? If administrator AGK is correct, it begs the question if you read my appeal in its entirety which apparently included evidence of "good behavior." If AGK is wrong, then your general assessment is accurate and AGK didn't take the time to look through my appeal
Of course, is should be noted for clarity that editors aside from AGK [•] disagreed as well.
Let me know thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't wish for the discussion to continue here. The words that were expressed at AE will have to suffice. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- So by suffice you mean you stand behind your accusations, even though other admins and editors disagreed? Can the discussion take place somewhere else then if this makes you uncomfortable? It is suspect to have two administrators come to polar opposite conclusions in an appeal process. This issue IMO compromises the legitimacy of the decline if admins cannot own up to their accusations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- You appealed at AE. There was a discussion, three admins participated, and the appeal was denied. I am sorry you found the result unsatisfactory. I suppose you could go to Arbcom if you want more process. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want more process. Are we having a comprehension issue here? You stated very bluntly that you could find no evidence of good behavior, and that was your motivation for declining. Another admin on the other hand recognized what he/she thought was positive contributions. As an administrator is there not some code one must follow? I did request more uninvolved admins to weigh in as uninvolved editors supported my appeal (including an admin on a non-english wikipedia) but you closed the appeal unilaterally before that could happen.
- You appealed at AE. There was a discussion, three admins participated, and the appeal was denied. I am sorry you found the result unsatisfactory. I suppose you could go to Arbcom if you want more process. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- So by suffice you mean you stand behind your accusations, even though other admins and editors disagreed? Can the discussion take place somewhere else then if this makes you uncomfortable? It is suspect to have two administrators come to polar opposite conclusions in an appeal process. This issue IMO compromises the legitimacy of the decline if admins cannot own up to their accusations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- But, I digress. Do you stand behind your belief that there is no evidence of good behavior? A yes or no would be great. I will consider arbcom if we still have a disconnect here. I'm really beyond appealing the topic ban, this is about my status as an editor. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I felt that your answers in the unban discussion were unsatisfactory, and I am trying not to use stronger words to express how unhappy I was with your statements. Admins considering such a request rely partly on 'vibes,' on the theory that someone asking for unban is expected to have 'reformed' by some criterion. We try to see if the person is sincere. You dodged every which way about how come you disappointed your mentor. A frank admission of whatever problem there was (or disagreement) would have given you points for sincerity. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- But, I digress. Do you stand behind your belief that there is no evidence of good behavior? A yes or no would be great. I will consider arbcom if we still have a disconnect here. I'm really beyond appealing the topic ban, this is about my status as an editor. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- What answers specifically did you feel were unsatisfactory? You didn't respond to my comments to begin with. You seem fixated on this mentorship - I wasn't appealing my mentorship, but my topic ban. You completely shelved my statements in the appeal and deferred to a voluntary mentorship. So, for clarity - not only do you think I have a poor record of good behavior since December (contrary to another administrator's assessment) but believe I wasn't sincere in the appeal process? Though you never stated that at all. I'm trying to assume good faith here but you seem to be dodging a simple question - do you stand behind your original accusation that you could find no record of good behavior? At all? That puts you in conflict with another administrator. And two editors. This is more of issue as you were responsible for closing the appeal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Saying 'I wasn't appealing my mentorship, but my topic ban' is true. I have heard you say that. Now, as a reviewer of your topic ban, it would provide me some useful data if I can be told what went wrong with your mentorship. Are you willing to answer that? Or will you, at this point, start to ask for a different uninvolved admin, so you don't have to answer my question. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let's stick with one issue before we move on to the next. You said, before mentioning the mentorship if I recall, that you could find "no record of good behavior" since December of 2010. No record in the last 5-6 months. The examples I posted in my appeal - exaggerations, lies, whatever - not a sufficient record for good behavior. Do you or do you not stand behind this accusation? I've asked you about 7 times between the appeal and this discussion and you haven't provided a clear answer but defer to my relationship with Danger.
- Saying 'I wasn't appealing my mentorship, but my topic ban' is true. I have heard you say that. Now, as a reviewer of your topic ban, it would provide me some useful data if I can be told what went wrong with your mentorship. Are you willing to answer that? Or will you, at this point, start to ask for a different uninvolved admin, so you don't have to answer my question. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you agree I wasn't appealing my mentorship, why did you cite that as an issue rather than respond to my appeal of the original arbitration enforcement? I did provide two diffs showing my responses to Danger's ending of our mentorship (which were described by uninvolved editors as "innocuous") but you did not respond to them. If you really care about my mentorship history I'll be glad to provide you with my perspective but I do not see the relevance in my appeal (which, again - for emphasis - I'm not trying to continue). I also discovered in the last hour the editor responsible for filing the AE was banned. I don't know what effect that has, I imagine little, but I sent a message to Tim asking for clarification. So back to my original question - a yes or no would be great. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you declared yourself willing to answer all my questions fully and frankly, it would increase my interest in pursuing this discussion further. When I found that I was not going to get any answer out of you about mentorship, and when it seemed that you would keep on asking for a different admin in the hope of getting a different answer, that decreased my interest in going through all the diffs. If you *are* willing to answer my questions, will you also let me interview User:Danger to clarify their attitude to the matter? EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you agree I wasn't appealing my mentorship, why did you cite that as an issue rather than respond to my appeal of the original arbitration enforcement? I did provide two diffs showing my responses to Danger's ending of our mentorship (which were described by uninvolved editors as "innocuous") but you did not respond to them. If you really care about my mentorship history I'll be glad to provide you with my perspective but I do not see the relevance in my appeal (which, again - for emphasis - I'm not trying to continue). I also discovered in the last hour the editor responsible for filing the AE was banned. I don't know what effect that has, I imagine little, but I sent a message to Tim asking for clarification. So back to my original question - a yes or no would be great. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
What answers did you find unsatisfactory? I did respond to the reference to my mentorship which was ignored. Had you asked for more clarification, I would have gladly provided more. I certainly didn't waste any time as my responses were lengthy and explicit to other questions. however, I don't read minds. If you didn't like my answers then you should have said so. Is it not odd that two editors and one admin disagreed with your original assessment? If my appeal was a blatant snowball of decline then perhaps you would be making more sense, but IMO this mentorship (which was volunteer) issue is becoming a lightening rod. Now, again - do you stand behind your accusation that you found no record of good behavior since December? No clear response yet, but lots of talking about a volunteer mentorship. Who is being sincere here? When you answer that, then I'll set some time to investigate the events of March 2011 if you are truly curious. I wouldn't pester Danger unless this becomes a real deal. I would prefer you answer my original question first. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think this will be my final offer. If you agree to my previous request (full and frank answers to all questions) and the right to interview User:Danger about the mentorship, then I'll look into the possibility of reopening your appeal. (I won't provide answers to your other questions unless I get that agreement from you). If you don't agree to my conditions, please take your request to other admins or to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, agree to re-open my appeal or overrule it entirely? I seriously doubt Danger will want to take part in any of this and unless there is some serious credibility to your offer which seems very unorthodox. What would I be requesting arbcom or another admin? I'm asking you specifically if you stand behind the assessment that I have no good record since December of 2010. It has nothing to do with my mentorship with Gimme. If you regret those choice of words then say so, but the onus rests on those making the accusations.
I do feel the appeal was closed prematurely, perhaps it would be better to re-open it and continue the discussion about my mentorship there? If this is a concern for you. I'd be happy to answer questions there in spite of the declined appeal, it would streamline the process and make it more public. I have very little hope in obtaining a modified appeal and it doesn't make a lot of sense try Arbcom (I wouldn't know where to start) because I only have a few months left. You say now my answers were unsatisfactory, but didn't say that in the appeal.
You've said more here than in AE. Over one simple question. To be clear, I care less about the appeal and more about your views as an administrator (you have more authority than ordinary editors). If you say I have no good record since December while other admins and editors disagree, there is a problem. Do you not see this? Again, yes or no would suffice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't continue the discussion unless you are prepared to accept my offer. Other admins can surely do a review if you can convince someone else to look into the case for your unban. If I didn't do a good enough job of checking your editing record, someone else could. I can assist you in looking for another admin if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me think about it. Don't close this section yet. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Final thoughts
At the time you closed the appeal, there was no active consensus and the comments seem to be mixed, with uninvolved editors openly supporting an overturn, one admin ambivalent, another grateful for my positive contributions, and you claiming no record of good behavior thus decline. So, since it is clear as an admin you don't want to respond to my questions about whether or not you still stand behind the assessment that I have no record of good behavior since December of 2010 (instead deferring to my mentorship with Gimme which I was not appealing), I think arbcom is the best place to go. I care less about overturning my ban since I have less than 2 months left rather - I would like to see some more answers. Arbcom would expect probably admins to own up to their criticisms correct? And the fact that my original AE was filed by a now community-banned editor certainly corrupts the integrity of the judgement IMO. Can you direct me to the arbcom process? As I stated above, I believe the appeal was closed prematurely and a consensus of uninvolved editors had not been obtained. In your own talk below you describe the appeal process: If an editor does not like an action against them at AE, they should use Arbitration enforcement appeal. As it explains at the top, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" can overturn the original action. So this *appeal* is the step that needs consensus, the original sanction does not. I don't think renewing a relationship with Gimme will help in this issue and most likely mutate into something totally different. Let me know thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not seeing any response to my previous questions, I'm getting ready to archive this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comprehension troubles perhaps. Can you please direct me to Arbcom as you suggested? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You could also ask User:NuclearWarfare if he knows of the best approach. He is an Arbcom clerk. Since you have had a ban appeal denied at AE, I don't know the technicality of what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You could also ask User:NuclearWarfare if he knows of the best approach. He is an Arbcom clerk. Since you have had a ban appeal denied at AE, I don't know the technicality of what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comprehension troubles perhaps. Can you please direct me to Arbcom as you suggested? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind comment on my talk page
I'm closing it down now, but I wanted to thank you first. I am pretty sick of Wikipedia right now, but I am grateful for wonderful people like you whose work keeps the whole project ticking. I don't feel like doing a clean start or any start, so my style should not be a problem. betsythedevine (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Yes, this article could use considerable expansion. I am not in a position to make a major effort at this time. The Ayala obituary is good. There are two versions, one in the Annual Review of Genetics, the other in the Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy; I believe both are online. You could use these as a basis for expansion. MayerG (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Close by AGK of Enforcement Request concerning SD
Hi Ed -
It was my understanding that the outcome of the AE request concerning Supreme Deliciousness (permalink) was to have been decided by agreement among several admins, rather than any one imposing his wishes unilaterally, because of the high-profile and very strife-ridden nature of the request. I also noticed that in what I assumed was an ongoing collaboration, that when you were heading toward an admin-consensus decision to close with no action, as I understood, that you had the courtesy to ask AGK whether he wished to comment further before you wrote a close.
But now I see that AGK has closed it himself, and handed out a six-month topic ban. May I ask whether this decision was made in consultation with you, and with other admins? Or was it a unilateral decision on his part that essentially beat you to the finish line because you didn't know it was a race?
Part of the reason I ask is because I saw that here AGK asked you if you thought SD should be sanctioned, but then, less than three hours later he removed the question, without your having replied that I could see, and immediately closed the request. I'd feel quite troubled by this action if I were to learn that you had not actually responded to that question in the three hours it was in place before he removed it, and that he proceded with his close without consulting the wishes of other participating administrators.
I'll also admit that another part of the reason I ask is that I have a concern that AGK may not be as completely impartial an adjudicator in the I/P area as ideal perfection would require, to put it as politely as I can. I'll not say anything else about that here, except that my impression is based on multiple comments and actions that have seemed to me to indicate reason to raise the question. If others have similar concerns I'd be willing to present mine in some discussion that's appropriate to the purpose...
Oh, wait: As I was composing this I discovered that another user, Jd2718, has also expressed such concerns on AGK's talk, where that user likewise took exception to AGK's close, and makes similar observations to mine about AGK responding to your request for additional comments not with comments, but with a close.
Such concerns become more salient of course, since AGK appears to be ramping up his involvement in the I/P arena, and the more so because he seems to be doing so in a largely non-consultative, unilateral way, from what I've been able to see. For example he recently set up a kind of ARBPIA3-lite, as a kind of one-person court, essentially; I imply no disrespect with the term. I also understand from others' talk page comments that he's made a new proposal of some kind for enforcement policy in the I/P area. I haven't been able to find that, unless this is all that those talk page comments refer to?
It begins to look to me like we - the community - probably do need an appropriate venue to address concerns about whether AGK is as impartial as would be desired re adjudicating matters in the I/P area. It also appears, with the limited information I have available (perhaps he's consulted with other admins via IRC, for example?) that part of that discussion needs to be about a tendency toward non-consultative decisions in the I/P area rather than ones based on administrative consensus. I have several points I'd like to present in such a discussion, myself, and evidently at least one other editor thinks such a discussion is called for at this point, as well.
If you have a suggestion as to the appropriate place to open such a discussion, and how it could be approached in such a way as to keep the usual I/P drama from turning it into yet another slugfest, I'd be grateful. I've informed Jd2718 of my post here, btw, and also asad, because he also posted an objection on AGK's talk to his actions in closing the AE request.
But to come back to the original question, was AGK's closure of the AE request concerning Supreme Deliciousness essentially the unilateral action that it appears to me to have been, or did I miss something? – OhioStandard (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Attention talk page stalkers Please allow Ed the courtesy of responding to these questions to his satisfaction before you do, and don't post to this section unless/until he specifically invites general discussion here. This isn't the forum for a long or general debate on the questions I've asked of him, unless he indicates a willingness to host such a discussion here. Thank you. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- See my comment over at User talk:AGK#Problematic AE closure. As Sandstein reminds us periodically, an AE close is a one-person decision. Please ask Sandstein to comment on the situation; it would be interesting to hear his response. :-) EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- If an editor does not like an action against them at AE, they should use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. As it explains at the top, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" can overturn the original action. So this *appeal* is the step that needs consensus, the original sanction does not. The complaint that people are making about lack of admin consensus for AGK's decision seems like it is actually an expression of unhappiness about the decision itself. It seems that few admins actually want to take the heat of closing an AE complaint regarding I/P. The experiment that AGK was doing was at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Arab-Israeli conflict. It seems that he has blanked the discussion, and perhaps he is withdrawing the idea. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Ed, that's a very good point. The experiment was mistaken (apparently), but in the meantime, there is a process for sensible appeal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Ed: In this thread, I quoted you and Gatoclass here, beginning with "outdenting". You'll need to read the thread for the context, however. I infer from AGK's talk, and from his removal of my talkback, that he does not intend to accept my suggestion that he consult with you and Gatoclass to ask whether you favored closing with no action. Based on your previous comments I assume you probably don't care; your prerogative, of course, but I informed Gato, who I also quoted, so I thought I should inform you, as well. – OhioStandard (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Gatoclass does not consider himself to be an uninvolved admin for purposes of closing ARBPIA enforcement requests. My own views have been adequately expressed. Notice that SD has not filed an appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- @Ed: In this thread, I quoted you and Gatoclass here, beginning with "outdenting". You'll need to read the thread for the context, however. I infer from AGK's talk, and from his removal of my talkback, that he does not intend to accept my suggestion that he consult with you and Gatoclass to ask whether you favored closing with no action. Based on your previous comments I assume you probably don't care; your prerogative, of course, but I informed Gato, who I also quoted, so I thought I should inform you, as well. – OhioStandard (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks; I just learned from Gatoclass of his self-recusal from that area of AE. You may choose not to disclose the information, of course, and I could respect your reasons for doing so, but I'd still like to ask whether my strong impression from your comments that you intended to close with no action is correct? If you were to tell me that impression is not correct, I'd naturally have a very different view of AGK's close, and one that I'd frankly be glad to be able to have. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
In case you weren't familiar with his history, BelloWello has four prior blocks on a previous account, three of them for edit warring, and had been topic banned (from an area unrelated to the current topic) for his poor interactions. Your weeklong block is relatively generous in light of his history, though not inappropriately so. Feel free to email me if you have any questions. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Email sent. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you close this?
Did you really intend to close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive700#Admin_closure_needed? It seems as if two different ANI issues about Southern Adventist University may have been conflated. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- It was User:Mathsci who put the closure box on that ANI discussion, not me. Please ask him. I have not looked into whatever that discussion was, and it was not part of the AN3 complaint. Do you think that the Wedgwood Trio has enough notability to survive as a stand-alone article? EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
FYA
Hi, I just noted you are cordially guiding Angel670 on their talkpage. I'd like to bring to your attention this edit, where he/she reverted my note and tagged it as "stop vandalising my talkpage" (clear personal attack). If you think this is not a CIVIL way of communication, you might consider guiding him/her on the matter. Best regards. -- Ashot (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was not happy to see that edit summary. Since you're here, and you are interested in a few of the same issues as Angel670, I invite you to propose how we could resolve the sourcing issues for the massacre articles. My concern is that the facts about the 1992 massacres are so poorly known due to the lack of nonpartisan witnesses, e.g. the Western press, so we depend on survivor testimony. In practice, each side goes on repeating the version of events that it chooses to believe. When we see a new account of the massacres published somewhere, we may not be confident that there is any real information behind it. Perhaps better sources are out there somewhere. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have some vision of how that article can be improved in an appropriate manner.
- There really may be good sources we are not aware of (I am personally in search), but since in Wikipedia we can rely only on trustworthy neutral sources, we don't have a real alternative to scarce Western ones. So what we can do is (1) sum up all the Western sources we have; (2) RfC on those for which there is no consensus.
- Now the major problem I foresee is partisanship (like this one), and here probably some formal or informal mediation might be useful (and hence your support would be more than appreciated). -- Ashot (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I find it startling and perhaps worrisome that Angel670 wants a 'tit-for-tat' approach to sourcing. One source from your side, therefore one from our side to compensate. (That's what the above diff suggests). It may be possible to have an open discussion somewhere to agree on a list of sources. It should be done in a way that is compliant with Wikipedia policy. If you want to take the initiative to set up this discussion, I am sure that admins will be available to help. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Angel670, the user who brought the past AE complaint, has started an RfC about one of the massacres, in which sources will be discussed. (See User talk:Angel670#WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan and look at the bottom of the thread). The RfC has been opened with this diff and can be seen at Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre#Request for Comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that RFC statement is yet another misconduct edit by Angel670. He/she knows very well (at least from preceding discussions) that only 2 of the mentioned sources call the event massacre. Furthermore, he/she was not kind enough to provide us all with scanned version of the German source for further clarifications.
- I will refrain from commenting there as I agree with Marshal's statement and want to avoid partisanship in that RfC (let uninvolved editors have their input there and I'll join only when I find my input important). I also noticed you asked Golbez for a comment. Perhaps he is the most knowledgeable admin in the area and I only can thank you for that request.
- And another thing I'd like to say is that I wish you patience. Armenia-Azerbaijan related discussions may sometimes grow into tiresome circles and I know admins who simply get tired of everything (see, e.g. here). I hope you will pursue this discussion to achieve an appropriate point. Thanks in advance. -- Ashot (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I wish there was some way to word the RfC in a more effective way. Since I'm trying to act as an admin, there should be a limit on the amount of intervention I do in the RfC proper. I hope other content editors will suggest rewording of #1, which suggests lack of familiarity with the WP:RS policy. (Sources should not get disqualified due to their city of publication, but they don't get qualified that way either). My guess is that there must have been some past discussions of the best sources for the Karabakh war. With patience, somebody could go through archives and locate these. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Angel670, the user who brought the past AE complaint, has started an RfC about one of the massacres, in which sources will be discussed. (See User talk:Angel670#WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan and look at the bottom of the thread). The RfC has been opened with this diff and can be seen at Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre#Request for Comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I find it startling and perhaps worrisome that Angel670 wants a 'tit-for-tat' approach to sourcing. One source from your side, therefore one from our side to compensate. (That's what the above diff suggests). It may be possible to have an open discussion somewhere to agree on a list of sources. It should be done in a way that is compliant with Wikipedia policy. If you want to take the initiative to set up this discussion, I am sure that admins will be available to help. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: User:WriterEditorPenn block expiry
Sorry to bother you about this again -- but the hilariously single-minded account WriterEditorPenn (talk · contribs) you had placed on a time-out block is back and now moved beyond mere blanking vandalism and onto deceptive content creation.
It appears that with the expiration of the block for edit-warring, the editor has now decided to make a slew of slanted and perhaps intentionally fraudulent edits to DontDateHimGirl.com -- introducing claims that do not relate to the Web site itself, such as, "U.S. production company Reveille has optioned "Don't Date Him Girl" for a possible U.S. makeover announced at the Cannes Film Festival that year" -- although the source makes it clear that Reveille optioned a Scandinavian reality show unconnected to the site: "Sold by Nordisk Film TV World, part of Nordisk Film, reality show "Girl" turns on three over-confident single men competing for one girl -- despite the presence on the show of their ex-girlfriends."[20]
The SPA editor seems further intent on shifting the article far from NPOV: for example, claiming that in 2007, the site received a "Marketing to Women Award from Future Inc. Now" -- citing an online marketing blog, where a marketer decided to give kudos to "all the companies and marketers who have prompted my happy dances" [21] Not exactly a "serious" award, considering the site gets lauded for "Best Name for a Website" -- and the "winners get a free copy of my new e-book." [22]
Finally, it appears that this account is injecting a link to their own new site to "combat the constant vandalism, false information and editing wars that continue to plague the site's page on Wikipedia.com" -- which would be entirely contrary to WP:SELFPROMOTE.
The article is quite a mess now, and I'm inclined to revert it back to the state it was prior to the return of this user, but would rather not go down the road of re-igniting an edit war. As the user seems intent on not listening to any WP editor or admin, nor abiding by WP policy, I'm at a loss as how to proceed. --HidariMigi (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Curiously, this is one of the matters that is best taken to WP:ANI. That way, you will get a diversity of input. Plus, the misbehavior is colorful and amusing. Go there, phrase your complaint carefully, link to all the past discussions, be sure you ask for what remedy you want, and see what they say. Be sure to mention your own situation if you have had past involvement with the site. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Will do. It is rather amusing now, in't? My "involvement" was pretty much none at all, other than coming across the site by accident, having found an odd posting listing me by name, which I ascribe to a kind of stalkery date I had years ago. Since the site has (within the last week apparently) deactivated its formerly accessible database-- which the SPA editor seemingly pretended didn't exist-- I have no connection whatsoever, other than being a curious observer of what the internets hath wrought. --HidariMigi (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)