EdJohnston (talk | contribs) OneClickArchiver archived Advice to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 49 |
judgments |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
[[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] - given the repeated accusations of bad faith I invite you (or a mediator) to discuss this topic further by email. I understand and agree that I'm too direct in my language and will adjust it in the future but that doesn't solve the underlying problem which I've been trying to address but has so far been neglected. [[User:Saflieni|Saflieni]] ([[User talk:Saflieni|talk]]) 11:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] - given the repeated accusations of bad faith I invite you (or a mediator) to discuss this topic further by email. I understand and agree that I'm too direct in my language and will adjust it in the future but that doesn't solve the underlying problem which I've been trying to address but has so far been neglected. [[User:Saflieni|Saflieni]] ([[User talk:Saflieni|talk]]) 11:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Though you are not happy about the situation, this is one case where our regular Wikipedia processes should be allowed to work. We depend on editor consensus to decide what to do. In the Rwanda case, we are only deciding how we ought to write about a *book*. That's surely not an earthshaking issue and it is hard to mess that up too badly. I don't use email for this kind of thing. Good luck. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston#top|talk]]) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC) |
:Though you are not happy about the situation, this is one case where our regular Wikipedia processes should be allowed to work. We depend on editor consensus to decide what to do. In the Rwanda case, we are only deciding how we ought to write about a *book*. That's surely not an earthshaking issue and it is hard to mess that up too badly. I don't use email for this kind of thing. Good luck. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston#top|talk]]) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::[[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] I'm talking about your tendentious remarks, like this one: "He seems to want the author of the book to be considered a Rwandan genocide denier." That is turning my references to sources in the literature into a personal opinion and a personal motive that I, according to you, am supposed to have. This is the kind of personal attacks and allegations that I've been getting from the other two editors for five weeks now and is not something I expect from the admin. The examples you put up on the Noticeboard were taken out of context. And this: "Saflieni objected to this 'stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission'. Does he know about the copyright release that appears under the edit window whenever you hit 'Save'?" omits the fact that I was trying to follow your own suggestion to which we all agreed: "Since there have been hot disputes, my guess is that we will need either a formal WP:RFC to settle the wording, or a series of talk page agreements in which several people give their explicit approval." Considering the earlier experiences - e.g. the refusal to check the facts of my alleged misquoting and cherry picking with the intent to mislead, which is a serious accusation, I'm getting the feeling that you're either siding with the other two, or not understanding. I thought the situation - also the general dispute - might benefit from a peaceful exchange by email. I don't remember anyone asking me a normal question or responding to one of mine without jumping to conclusions, contradictions, false accusations, weird assumptions, value judgments, condemnations... Oh well. [[User:Saflieni|Saflieni]] ([[User talk:Saflieni|talk]]) 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Thank You! == |
== Thank You! == |
Revision as of 18:06, 18 December 2020
Recurring problem
- Iconian42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- L'grand Anonim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- LordRogalDorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Demographics of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- History of Transylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi, see these user contributions [[1]], a freshly iterated SPA, abusing the same way similar topic articles, quick reverts - already 3 in the Origin of the Romanians, but as well the other articles, talk page ignorance. The user quickly found my talk page ([2]), where another (sleeping?) SPA account with a very few edits abused the same part ([3]), and now again this new account abusing that part ([4]) which has been already regulated by other pages the two "famous" RFC-s.
Please also note ([5]) "more to summary" edit logs (bottom 6), as this user used already six times did that identical part of edit logs ([6]) - (the majority of the first edits)
Also all the three users recurrently use the word "bias", ([7]) - ("editorial bias", "Hungarian bias",), as did the other users in an identical way in the edit logs earlier ([8]), as originally ([9]), ([10])...
I have a bad feeling about this, and I don't wish to live that moments again...so I decided to inform/warn you in time, since everyting so apparent...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
- And fresh new revert ([11]) again with ("Hungarian bias")...oh my goodness, not again...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
- Feel free to alert any new accounts that cause you concern regarding their POV on Eastern Europe matters with {{subst:alert|topic=e-e}} on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, will do in case, but I tell you these issues are really unwelcome, I am sorry for our precious editing time as well :( (KIENGIR (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
- Feel free to alert any new accounts that cause you concern regarding their POV on Eastern Europe matters with {{subst:alert|topic=e-e}} on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
unfortunately the updates now presented reinforce the suspicion:
- after more times his edits ([12]]) were explicitly contested in an article, the user started to add some of it's parts to another article ([13]), repetitively, despite earlier another user explained him his unilateral way of interpretation about getting consensus ([14]) is quite problematic, but this did push him back of to pursue the earlier referred phenomenon ([15])
- Despite more users explained him in edit logs and even in the talk page ([16]) about policies regarding the lead, the identical way he does want to understand or challenge it, with unprofessional responses ([17]), and continuing with problematic edits ([18])
- his style of arguing, non-understanding, even orthographical features are identical
- but what is really the top and prompted me to update you immediately, he is violating the result of the RFC's on both pages ([19]), ([20]), openly pushing identical traits, the places the previous user performed his running amock, despite the RFC results clearly decided what should be included and what not.
As per all of the evidence presented, it is clear that's not just a violation of the topic ban, but sock puppetry unfortunately. Sad story.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC))
- Just noticed, meanwhile solved ([21]).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC))
In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front is a 2018 non-fiction book by Canadian journalist Judi Rever and published by Random House of Canada;
This ia a section for continuing a certain debate at ANI, if anyone wants to. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have read the book, and I believe we could create a good NPOV article instead of a jumbled mess. I would welcome advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do you want to propose something in your sandbox? I could certainly see the advantages of something short, but neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am working on a re-draft of the Content section, which should, I agree(!) be "short, but neutral". HouseOfChange (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, you say on the Noticeboard you have some ideas. Please tell what they are. So far "neutral" has proved to be an elastic concept and my suggestions about due weight and to not include errors etc. were fought every inch of the way but never resolved (or addressed properly). The whole discussion with Buidhe started when I corrected an error with my first edit and tred to expand expert's views but, as you know, we never recovered from that. Saflieni (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Since there have been hot disputes, my guess is that we will need either a formal WP:RFC to settle the wording, or a series of talk page agreements in which several people give their explicit approval. One way to approach this is to start from a very simplified version of the article that doesn't say much as to who is right (or which group engaged in mass murder), and then expand it by a series of agreements. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Saflieni (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Btw: please extend the editing ban on the article during this parallel project. Saflieni (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Since there have been hot disputes, my guess is that we will need either a formal WP:RFC to settle the wording, or a series of talk page agreements in which several people give their explicit approval. One way to approach this is to start from a very simplified version of the article that doesn't say much as to who is right (or which group engaged in mass murder), and then expand it by a series of agreements. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, you say on the Noticeboard you have some ideas. Please tell what they are. So far "neutral" has proved to be an elastic concept and my suggestions about due weight and to not include errors etc. were fought every inch of the way but never resolved (or addressed properly). The whole discussion with Buidhe started when I corrected an error with my first edit and tred to expand expert's views but, as you know, we never recovered from that. Saflieni (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am working on a re-draft of the Content section, which should, I agree(!) be "short, but neutral". HouseOfChange (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do you want to propose something in your sandbox? I could certainly see the advantages of something short, but neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Draft of "contents" based on having read the book, and the article's sources. "Contents" should reflect major themes of the book, rather than singling out points Rever mentions that others found controversial. I hope Buidhe will also comment. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange, That's definitely an improvement, thank you. I believe that Caplan's summary, "almost every one of her 250 pages of text contains extremely damning accusations", should also be included somewhere in the article. I also support keeping the current blockquote since that explains her reasoning for framing it this way. And why did you take out the part where it says she conducted hundreds of interviews? (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Buidhe, for your thoughtful suggestions. Saflieni and EdJohnston, do you agree that Buidhe's changes would improve the "Contents" draft? HouseOfChange (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- The summary is more or less ok but the texts in the references aren't. The quoted opinions suggest that Rever's information is correct, but except for Caplan, it's non-experts talking who assume something. This takes us back to the reliable sources discussion. Examples: "But Rever makes a plausible case for it," and the information following this remark present the book's content as truth, which is what Caplan challenges in that section of his article I was asking you all to read carefully. "Rever’s account will prove difficult to challenge," is outdated because parts of it have been successfully challenged (e.g. death camps theory, the assault on the plane). "She has been writing about Central Africa for more than twenty years," is an untrue statement. She worked in West Africa for several years (AFP correspondent in Abidjan 1998-2001, see p. 48). Then she became a stay at home mum (occasional free lance work) and resumed writing on Africa in 2010 (article on Mapping report, p.51)) and started on Rwanda in 2013. And so on. Saflieni (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC) This needs nuancing: "There is no part of this book that denies the genocide..." I'll get back to it tomorrow. Saflieni (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- "There is no part of this book that denies the genocide..." is a personal statement made in the book by the author. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sure but that doesn't mean others (scholars, survivors, etc.) agree with it. That's why I said "nuancing". I'll get back to it.
- "There is no part of this book that denies the genocide..." is a personal statement made in the book by the author. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston: Could you please take another look at your comment [22]. Because other comments were inserted above it, it now gives the impression you weigh in on those, and that I have not three but four opponents. Thanks. Saflieni (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Saflieni Rever's critics (and fans) have their say when we get to "Reception." Also, can we please discuss the article, not your "opponents"? Perhaps we could put "Reviews" and "Alleged inaccuracies" into two different sections? Would you like to write a draft of the latter, and I will draft the former? HouseOfChange (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- About my sidenote for EdJohnston: He can remove it and respond on my Talk page (or solve it). I'm ok with two sections for Reception, but better to split positive and critical, or journalists and scholars. An inaccuracies section would probably take too much space. I will try to find time for writing something but I'll have to look at my schedule. About my suggestion regarding the personal opinions of reviewers in the references: I meant not including any tendentious statements, especially if they're conflicting with the book's content. Best remove the opinions or use them in the Reception section. Saflieni (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- The "References" section will appear at the bottom of the page, far from the "Contents" section. When a quote appears in a reference, it represents the opinion of the author of that piece. If you want to suggest better quotes for any references, please do. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need for opinions in the References, is there? A quote belongs in the text and the source of the quote in "References". Saflieni (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- In the absence of any more comments by admins in the ANI, I think the best plan is for all of you to continue the negotiation at Talk:In Praise of Blood#Consider making a new version. It might help if anyone who has read the book could make a note of that in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously I have read the book, 2018 and 2020 versions (and all of her other work except the arts and crafts stuff, the reviews including the ones not yet discussed, the scholarly literature and journalism as well as the fringe and denialist literature, survivor testimonies, diplomatic communications, just about all the judicial documents related to the subject, etc.). I haven't seen any comments by admins or did I miss something? In the meantime you guys might consider apologizing for your disgraceful attempts at character assassination in your concerted campaign across Wikipedia. It's just a thought. Saflieni (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- In the absence of any more comments by admins in the ANI, I think the best plan is for all of you to continue the negotiation at Talk:In Praise of Blood#Consider making a new version. It might help if anyone who has read the book could make a note of that in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need for opinions in the References, is there? A quote belongs in the text and the source of the quote in "References". Saflieni (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- The "References" section will appear at the bottom of the page, far from the "Contents" section. When a quote appears in a reference, it represents the opinion of the author of that piece. If you want to suggest better quotes for any references, please do. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- About my sidenote for EdJohnston: He can remove it and respond on my Talk page (or solve it). I'm ok with two sections for Reception, but better to split positive and critical, or journalists and scholars. An inaccuracies section would probably take too much space. I will try to find time for writing something but I'll have to look at my schedule. About my suggestion regarding the personal opinions of reviewers in the references: I meant not including any tendentious statements, especially if they're conflicting with the book's content. Best remove the opinions or use them in the Reception section. Saflieni (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I have read the book, the reviews, and some other background literature, so I am in a position to describe what RS have said. Also, I have the book on Kindle, so that I can help with text searches if disputes arise. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- About RS, because we were unable to resolve that debate I posted a question here [23] to get independent opinions about the status of reliable sources from one field of science who offer opinions on other, unrelated disciplines (Health vs genocide/transitional justice in our case) but unfortunately someone came along to mention the ANI so I doubt anyone will respond. I don't mind writing the draft for a "reception by experts" section but we'll have to get beyond that obstacle to prevent further disputes. Saflieni (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the article should minimize book reviews by authors like Helen Epstein and Laurie Garrett on the grounds that they have not devoted their distinguished careers to specializing in Rwanda genocide. Nor should it greatly stretch out the opinions of Helen Hintjens and Jos van Oijen on the grounds that they have. HouseOfChange (talk)
- We know your opinion but the discussion is (or should be) about giving due weight to the facts presented in peer reviewed journals over layman's opinions, whoever they are. That was my point from the beginning four weeks ago but we haven't moved an inch. Since you seem to have a special problem with Hintjens and van Oijen: you may have noticed that Gerald Caplan in his long and thoughtful article refers to their research as "so valuable" compared to "Rever's fan" Epstein. I'm not making things up here as I keep telling you. Check and you will know. Saflieni (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is also a COI problem with some of your "experts." And it's not just that Rever's book disputes their "wisdom." It would be dangerous for them to agree with Rever. Caplan got booted from "Friend of Rwanda" status for saying much less than Rever has said. It is funny that until January 2019 letter to the Lancet no "experts" said that Rever denied the Rwanda genocide. Caplan directly said that she did not. Jos van Oijen, reviewing the book on December 18, 2018, never mentioned "genocide denial" and what he found "Most alarming about this book is that nobody appears to have bothered with fact checking to establish the veracity of the information." Then in January 2019, three Rwanda-based academics denounced Rever as being just like a Holocaust denier. Those three, living in Rwanda, would face jail or even death if they believed in "the crimes of the RPF" (topic of Rever's book) so no wonder they blame her for not saying more about Hutus plotting against Tutsis (not the topic of Rever's book.) And bingo, your experts climb on the latest bandwagon and Rever becomes a "genocide denier." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, first of all you are entitled to your opinion and you may agree or disagree with anyone on the denial issue, which we can discuss separately. I am now trying to discuss the RS argument I brought up. You put experts between quotation marks to suggest they are not experts. But it is their peers who decide whether they are experts or not. The editors of Genocide Studies International are all highly regarded senior scholars in their field. The editor-in-chief, Roger W. Smith, the founder and former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, wrote in his introduction: "The essay by Helen Hintjens and Jos van Oijen on genocide denial that accompanied the Rwandan genocide from its beginnings to the present is, I think, one of the finest articles we have published in GSI."[24] I have already highlighted Caplan's remark in which he compares the relative value of their work and that of Epstein. About your bandwagon suggestion: peer reviewed journal articles usually take a year or more before they're published. Please be careful with your suggestions. But before I become too "wordy" again, I'm going to ask you to read the section "Appeal to false authority" on this page [25]. I have tried but failed to make this point clear before so I hope this explanation will help. I will propose some text for our Wikipedia article soon but since I have a day job and a social life too that will probably be on friday or saturday if that's ok. Saflieni (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC) PS: Don't go down the same road by introducing new allegations of bad faith against bona fide scholars or me. There are at the moment sixteen references to Epstein and Garrett and only three to Hintjens and van Oijen and still you're suggesting the latter are too dominant. Keep things in perspective, please. Saflieni (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:EdJohnston, May I suggest we settle the Epstein vs Hintjens & v. Oijen discussion so we can leave it behind? I have two arguments besides the ones I have already stated. One: About the repeated COI suggestion I want to remind everybody that not I but Buidhe introduced them as a source [26]. I merely added some information which I thought was relevant to a statement in the Content section. Two: A helpful comment on my RS Noticeboard question [27] refers to the guidelines WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI, which combined with the appeal to false authority explanations appear to support my approach. I'd rather not have to address this issue again. Saflieni (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually you brought them up first, on the talk page. Regardless, I agree with HoC that everyone's views should be represented according to NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I can't believe this. You inserted two references to their GSI article on 11 November. I didn't get involved until 12 November. Saflieni (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually you brought them up first, on the talk page. Regardless, I agree with HoC that everyone's views should be represented according to NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:EdJohnston, May I suggest we settle the Epstein vs Hintjens & v. Oijen discussion so we can leave it behind? I have two arguments besides the ones I have already stated. One: About the repeated COI suggestion I want to remind everybody that not I but Buidhe introduced them as a source [26]. I merely added some information which I thought was relevant to a statement in the Content section. Two: A helpful comment on my RS Noticeboard question [27] refers to the guidelines WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI, which combined with the appeal to false authority explanations appear to support my approach. I'd rather not have to address this issue again. Saflieni (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, first of all you are entitled to your opinion and you may agree or disagree with anyone on the denial issue, which we can discuss separately. I am now trying to discuss the RS argument I brought up. You put experts between quotation marks to suggest they are not experts. But it is their peers who decide whether they are experts or not. The editors of Genocide Studies International are all highly regarded senior scholars in their field. The editor-in-chief, Roger W. Smith, the founder and former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, wrote in his introduction: "The essay by Helen Hintjens and Jos van Oijen on genocide denial that accompanied the Rwandan genocide from its beginnings to the present is, I think, one of the finest articles we have published in GSI."[24] I have already highlighted Caplan's remark in which he compares the relative value of their work and that of Epstein. About your bandwagon suggestion: peer reviewed journal articles usually take a year or more before they're published. Please be careful with your suggestions. But before I become too "wordy" again, I'm going to ask you to read the section "Appeal to false authority" on this page [25]. I have tried but failed to make this point clear before so I hope this explanation will help. I will propose some text for our Wikipedia article soon but since I have a day job and a social life too that will probably be on friday or saturday if that's ok. Saflieni (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC) PS: Don't go down the same road by introducing new allegations of bad faith against bona fide scholars or me. There are at the moment sixteen references to Epstein and Garrett and only three to Hintjens and van Oijen and still you're suggesting the latter are too dominant. Keep things in perspective, please. Saflieni (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is also a COI problem with some of your "experts." And it's not just that Rever's book disputes their "wisdom." It would be dangerous for them to agree with Rever. Caplan got booted from "Friend of Rwanda" status for saying much less than Rever has said. It is funny that until January 2019 letter to the Lancet no "experts" said that Rever denied the Rwanda genocide. Caplan directly said that she did not. Jos van Oijen, reviewing the book on December 18, 2018, never mentioned "genocide denial" and what he found "Most alarming about this book is that nobody appears to have bothered with fact checking to establish the veracity of the information." Then in January 2019, three Rwanda-based academics denounced Rever as being just like a Holocaust denier. Those three, living in Rwanda, would face jail or even death if they believed in "the crimes of the RPF" (topic of Rever's book) so no wonder they blame her for not saying more about Hutus plotting against Tutsis (not the topic of Rever's book.) And bingo, your experts climb on the latest bandwagon and Rever becomes a "genocide denier." HouseOfChange (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- We know your opinion but the discussion is (or should be) about giving due weight to the facts presented in peer reviewed journals over layman's opinions, whoever they are. That was my point from the beginning four weeks ago but we haven't moved an inch. Since you seem to have a special problem with Hintjens and van Oijen: you may have noticed that Gerald Caplan in his long and thoughtful article refers to their research as "so valuable" compared to "Rever's fan" Epstein. I'm not making things up here as I keep telling you. Check and you will know. Saflieni (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the article should minimize book reviews by authors like Helen Epstein and Laurie Garrett on the grounds that they have not devoted their distinguished careers to specializing in Rwanda genocide. Nor should it greatly stretch out the opinions of Helen Hintjens and Jos van Oijen on the grounds that they have. HouseOfChange (talk)
Both Epstein and Hintjens/vanO should have their opinions fairly represented. Please let's work on some text that people can respond to. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ignoring all of my arguments, including the references to the Wikipedia rules regarding the use of opinions by non-experts I've mentioned in my previous comments, is not cooperating. I've predicted that you would just ignore everything and delete edits again once the ban was lifted. Saflieni (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- User:EdJohnston, since you set this up to start a new, neutral article the new proposal hasn't been neutral. And when the ban on editing the article was lifted, everything resumed as before: my edits being deleted, others forcing a consensus not based on facts, and my efforts trying to educate the other editors to whom the subject is a complete mystery but who still act superior, met with the same contradictions as before. HouseOfChange polarized the debate by referring to critical scholars as "anti-Rever militants" and "angry reviewers" and runs to the Noticeboards to get their way. So what happened to "neutral" and why do you condone that behaviour?
- For anyone else still interested, I've parked my proposal for "Reception" and an additional section "Double Genocide" here: [28]Saflieni (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I removed two trivial but POV phrases, as discussed here and here. Then I replaced the disputed "Contents" section with the draft from my Sandbox, as discussed here, inviting more discussion on the article talk page. (I also had to rescue some references.) Otherwise the article is unchanged and we are discussing new drafts proposed by Saflieni -- who responds "don't start about a consensus when you really mean that you want to make final decisions." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes but EdJohnston's suggestion was not to give one side of the dispute the advantage which is what actually happened. Not sure why you reply to questions I ask him unless you two are one person. The tendentious quotes, which contain misinformation, btw, are still there in the references.
- Anyway, my version here: [29]. Sensible comments please.Saflieni (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- I removed two trivial but POV phrases, as discussed here and here. Then I replaced the disputed "Contents" section with the draft from my Sandbox, as discussed here, inviting more discussion on the article talk page. (I also had to rescue some references.) Otherwise the article is unchanged and we are discussing new drafts proposed by Saflieni -- who responds "don't start about a consensus when you really mean that you want to make final decisions." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston - given the repeated accusations of bad faith I invite you (or a mediator) to discuss this topic further by email. I understand and agree that I'm too direct in my language and will adjust it in the future but that doesn't solve the underlying problem which I've been trying to address but has so far been neglected. Saflieni (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Though you are not happy about the situation, this is one case where our regular Wikipedia processes should be allowed to work. We depend on editor consensus to decide what to do. In the Rwanda case, we are only deciding how we ought to write about a *book*. That's surely not an earthshaking issue and it is hard to mess that up too badly. I don't use email for this kind of thing. Good luck. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- EdJohnston I'm talking about your tendentious remarks, like this one: "He seems to want the author of the book to be considered a Rwandan genocide denier." That is turning my references to sources in the literature into a personal opinion and a personal motive that I, according to you, am supposed to have. This is the kind of personal attacks and allegations that I've been getting from the other two editors for five weeks now and is not something I expect from the admin. The examples you put up on the Noticeboard were taken out of context. And this: "Saflieni objected to this 'stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission'. Does he know about the copyright release that appears under the edit window whenever you hit 'Save'?" omits the fact that I was trying to follow your own suggestion to which we all agreed: "Since there have been hot disputes, my guess is that we will need either a formal WP:RFC to settle the wording, or a series of talk page agreements in which several people give their explicit approval." Considering the earlier experiences - e.g. the refusal to check the facts of my alleged misquoting and cherry picking with the intent to mislead, which is a serious accusation, I'm getting the feeling that you're either siding with the other two, or not understanding. I thought the situation - also the general dispute - might benefit from a peaceful exchange by email. I don't remember anyone asking me a normal question or responding to one of mine without jumping to conclusions, contradictions, false accusations, weird assumptions, value judgments, condemnations... Oh well. Saflieni (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank You!
- Benjamin Gordon (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WP:COIN#Benjamin Gordon (businessman)
User:EdJohnston, thank you for your help protecting against the defamatory postings, e.g. today on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Gordon_(businessman). My mother said, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me," but that was before the Internet! It is exhausting dealing with trolls who form single-use accounts for vindictive purposes. I appreciate that you are taking the time to do this, and it really makes a difference to keep Wikipedia a neutral source of knowledge rather than a place for carrying out vendettas. This is a good way to make the world a better place, one step at a time! Bengee123 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
5.43.72.55
I dangled a worm purely in the interests of good order, and they took the bait. More fool them - and, unfortunately. Narky Blert (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think he is gonna give up this easy. See: 109.175.38.114 (talk · contribs) Coltsfan (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- 109.175.38.114 (talk · contribs) is now blocked. Also editing anonymously from a Sarajevo ISP. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there is more. Better to protect the pages he is editing, rather than blocking him one IP at a time (like 109.163.168.91 (talk · contribs). Coltsfan (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi Ed,
There are 2 users lukeemily and heba they are continuously vandalising wiki pages and they targeting a single community in india.
Please take action against them and if possible restore the previous content. Jbinsan (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- On your talk page you wrote 'I am writing because they 2 wiki page writers are writing this content with some sort of hate agenda'.
- I don't believe that is a correct summary of the situation. I notice that User:Bishonen has already given you some advice on User talk:Jbinsan and I suggest you take it. You are choosing to edit in the domain of WP:ARBIPA, which is troubled by promotional editing especially about castes. If you look at the CASTE general sanctions you will become aware of some of the problems. I recommend caution. The page at WP:CIR is worth reading if you choose to wade into a difficult area without becoming fully aware of the past issues. An example of what *not* to do is to use the word 'vandalising' and the phrase 'hate agenda' about regular mainstream editors such as User:LukeEmily and User:Heba Aisha. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)