hello
could you send me the pdf data too. Krisztina Bodrogi, "Turks, Kurds, or a people in their own right?Wikisupporting (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please see the instructions on setting up your Wikipedia email which I left on your talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Zaza source email
Ed: Would you please email that Zaza article to my wiki email address: <redacted> Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
A self-revert yet with more personal attacks
Ed, I am getting tired very quickly of this outright gaming and bullshit that is going on in this area. I am trying to formulate a response to you (on my talk page) about ways to get around this, but it is impossible to do so when Vecrumba self-reverts, but immediately engages in personal attacks on myself at User_talk:Vecrumba#Since_you_were_involved_in_discussion_of_this_in_the_past -- this is getting beyond a joke, and I am now asking that these personal attacks be dealt with immediately. Unlike borderline cases of editing which may or may not breach interaction bans, Vecrumba's outright personal attacks are a breach of his interaction ban in the most egregious way possible, not to mention a core principle, that being WP:CIVIL. It is obvious that Vecrumba has no intention of trying to work things out like adults, but will continue to engage in personal attacks on myself, making it more likely of WWIII breaking out, and this needs to be avoided.
I am also asking that you deal with Volunteer Marek's interjection into the AE discussion in which he is not a part, which is also a breach of his interaction ban on myself. He is not a party to the dispute, so it too is plain interaction ban. And his breach of interaction is also full of personal attacks on myself.
See, WWIII? I am not going to get involved in this any further, apart from what I will try to discuss with you (and any other interested admins) on my talk page. Hopefully in the coming hours. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Though V. may have put too much feeling into his response, it does not appear to be a personal attack. The one listed at WP:AE#Vecrumba really *was* a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, two things.
- 1st. I consider Russavia's edit, which eliminated a source only because it is critical of Russia, to be harassment of all those editors who are interested in a reputable representation of the Soviet legacy through to Russia's interpretation of said legacy through to current foreign policy regarding the Baltic states. This is not a comment on content, it is a comment on my motivation for making particular edits, accuses me of harrassment, also accuses me in a way of POV editing - if you know the history of "reputable representation" you'll know what I am talking about. Considering that he has made these comments immediately after doing the revert only makes this yet another breach of his interaction ban on me. He could have simply reverted his blatant interaction ban breach, and notified. But instead, we get another rant with personal attacks on myself as an editor, with nothing to be said about the content.
- 2nd. VM has no valid reason to be present at the AE report; he is not part of any dispute, and he has also engaged in personal attacks on myself. I hope that this will be dealt with as well in an expeditious manner.
- Please ask for a second, third, fourth, fifth opinion on this from other admins, and see what they say. FPaS and Jehochman may be of some use; as they are but two admins who I am aware of who were quite knowledgeable on patterns of behaviour and the like with myself and EEML.
- Sorry that I, and you, are being placed in this position. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- My inclination is to think that V. could need a much longer block for the history of personal attacks. When the AE closes we will find out if that is the result. But such a block wouldn't solve the interaction between you and Tammsalu. One idea is to actually *lift* the interaction ban between you and Tammsalu, with the expectation that both parties would use the utmost diplomacy on articles that are of interest to both of you. If this gets any support, it would need to be approved by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I regret that my observation that an editor showed up (in the midst of another dispute) apparently to remove content indicating criticism of Russia is considered a personal attack and not an objective observation regarding provocation. If the editors who allege I have personally attacked them can produce evidence of any constructive content they have created regarding the Baltics (or the Soviet-Baltic or Russia-Baltic dynamic) I would be more than glad to retract my apparently unfortunate observation. I would support lifting of the interaction bans so we can get back to discussing content. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 17:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC) - Ed, I am now asking that Vecrumba be banned right now, given that he is continuing to engage in personal attacks. His initial personal attack is not grounds for him to make an additional 3 personal attacks against myself, and also engage in personal attacks against TFD and Nanobear. Given that this is problematic behaviour for Vecrumba, I am inclined to ask that Vecrumba receive a 2 month block for the personal attacks against myself, followed by a one-year EE topic ban under the general WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. As Vecrumba has a demonstrated long history of personal attacks against other editors, and because his behaviour doesn't appear to have changed since WP:EEML days and since receiving a 3 week block for extreme personal attacks on myself at an ongoing Arbcom case, a two-month block and a one year topic ban is more than warranted. Then myself and other editors who are not engaging in attacks can hopefully work towards a conciliatory solution.
- Additionally Ed, if these personal attacks are not dealt with in a timely manner right now, I will be placing a notice at WP:AN/I for other admins to intervene, because not only are they personal attacks, but it is also WP:HARRASSment, and I have been thru this before with admins doing nothing about it, and I am not going to allow it to occur again. --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I regret that my observation that an editor showed up (in the midst of another dispute) apparently to remove content indicating criticism of Russia is considered a personal attack and not an objective observation regarding provocation. If the editors who allege I have personally attacked them can produce evidence of any constructive content they have created regarding the Baltics (or the Soviet-Baltic or Russia-Baltic dynamic) I would be more than glad to retract my apparently unfortunate observation. I would support lifting of the interaction bans so we can get back to discussing content. PЄTЄRS
- My inclination is to think that V. could need a much longer block for the history of personal attacks. When the AE closes we will find out if that is the result. But such a block wouldn't solve the interaction between you and Tammsalu. One idea is to actually *lift* the interaction ban between you and Tammsalu, with the expectation that both parties would use the utmost diplomacy on articles that are of interest to both of you. If this gets any support, it would need to be approved by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry that I, and you, are being placed in this position. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed, your idea of lifting the interaction ban is a good one. While ArbCom would need to approve any permanent lifting, perhaps your discretionary powers would allow a temporary trial? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- The interaction bans come from WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB. Most likely this needs a motion by Arbcom. It would make sense to expand the offer to other named parties of the EEML case. If they say yes, their names could be included in a Request for Amendment. I might not support including all of the parties, but Arbcom could make that call. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Russavia, I think you should wait patiently for the result of WP:AE#Vecrumba. I suspect that there will be a need for further sanctions against Vecrumba, since he does not show much interest in collaboration on these articles and continues to inject these colorful personal attacks. If you resort to ANI why don't you take your chances there and I'll wash my hands of the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, as you say it is clear that Vecrumba isn't showing a collaborative attitude, and is demonstrating that he is part of a problem, not part of the solution. Engaging in a personal attack does not create grounds for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" as per Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted. Instead of clearly and directly warning Vecrumba that personal attacks are not tolerated, he is being allowed to continue to engage in personal attacks on myself, which is clearly not conducive to creating an atmosphere in which editors who wish to collaborate and to try and work out a solution that will benefit editors within EE who wish to try and move forward within the WP:SPIRIT of why we are supposed to be here. The longer that he is allowed to continue, the worse it is going to be for all of us I fear.
- If the AE case being open is the problem, I have no problem with it being closed of, with a one-week block of myself as suggested, whilst we continue to work towards a conciliatory solution, say on my talk page, so that I can still participate in it whilst being blocked. How is that for an interim solution? But I can't allow such blatant harrassment to be continued against myself under such blatant circumstances. I hope you do acknowledge that it is harrassment? --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Thanks also for your intervening and trying to help work out a solution that could benefit many editors within this topic area. It's great to see. --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Russavia, I think you should wait patiently for the result of WP:AE#Vecrumba. I suspect that there will be a need for further sanctions against Vecrumba, since he does not show much interest in collaboration on these articles and continues to inject these colorful personal attacks. If you resort to ANI why don't you take your chances there and I'll wash my hands of the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed, as we are all looking for a solution, and in light of the comments of FPoS[1], I don't think there is any benefit in this push for a finding of "harrassment" against Vecrumba, who only expressed his perception of the inapproriateness of that particular AfD. Afterall his perception was in part supported by TC and you proposing a block for both sides. The implied offer to accept a one-week block in return for a finding of "harrassment" against Vecrumba isn't necessary. My view is that in light of your constructive suggestion for lifting of the iBan, the support for it by the parties and FPoS' support for such a proposal, that the AE case be closed with no action on both sides (as it was in the previous case) and that an amendment request be brought to ArbCom requesting a suspension of the mutual iBan for all concerned. Let ArbCom decide whether particular individuals should benefit from the suspension or not. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the overuse of "blatant" et al. rather points out who is actually on the attack here. As my arbitration filings are years in-between, I am glad to support a true end to the "harassment," which is to implement an enforcement request ban on all who participated on both sides of the EEML debacle, so, in my case that would mean I can't file a request against anyone who presented evidence against myself (and others, to make it simple) @ EEML, nor can they file a request against me (and others). If you wish an end to hostilities, disarm the combatants. I've been advocating for this for years, perhaps someone will listen, finally. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 23:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC) - P.S. If other editors initiate conflict, my defending myself or reputably sourced content is not disruption, and I am fully entitled to state my opinion of those who attack me, who question my motives, and who sully my reputation—and do so with a frequency which proves it's really just to get a rise out of me; of course, if I don't respond, they've then succeeded in running me off. So, has WP finally degenerated into a kangaroo court run by demonstrably anti-Baltic editors? PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 23:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC) - P.P.S. I am glad to debate Nanobear, Russavia, or any other editor regarding what constitutes content which fairly and accurately represents reputable and reliable sources. That has never been an issue. It is when editors step over the line attempting to control content by means OTHER than intellectual debate that problems start. Being that I have personally debated paid propaganda pushers on other topics—at least they stuck to sources as they were being paid to create content—I'm 100% confident I'm not the problem here. (And for the upteenth time, I am not insinuating my current detractors are paid by anyone in an yway, as they have accused of making that "personal attack" as well in the past.) PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 23:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Russophobia#Latvian_section for an illustrative discussion over representation of a source which involves Russavia, BorisG, and myself. This is how content is discussed in the absence of enforcement requests. Obviously, I disagreed with Russavia's assertion of "...whenever I place anything in an article, it is meticulously sourced, and will be presented in an NPOV way, and will survive the most stringent verification...". That is neither here nor there regarding the conversation here, the point here being that there was no escalation of conflict because no one filed a Arbitration Enforcement request against either of us for interacting inappropriately, no one advocated for either of us to be banned. Obviously there has been some WP:GAME changer which has precipitated recent AE attacks while I, in no manner, have been the initiator of any disruption whatsoever. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- And not like this. I am sure this is only poor timing instead of an assault on content about a reputable source which defends Baltic history against blatant myths, many continuing to be fomented by the current Russian administration. Bypass tagging an article with any concerns, go directly to deletion. And I can't say a damn thing because of the so-called interaction ban, Russavia got there first. I suppose I'll be attacked now for conspiracy theories and more personal attacks questioning an editor's motives. That article hadn't been touched in a year and a half, at which point now, in the middle of all this, Russavia nominates directly for deletion without even a mention on article talk. If you want an example of counterproductive disruption and polarizing provocation knowingly conducted under, and exploiting, an interaction ban to control content, it doesn't get any more clear than this. I bear no malice, Russavia and Nanobear are productive editors elsewhere, I have no need to outright ban them for months on end as they appear to advocate for me. Just take away their ability to dredge up conflict to the point that we're back to where we were two years ago. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 02:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)- Nor is soliciting prior partisans into the fray a strategy for de-fusing the situation. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nor is soliciting prior partisans into the fray a strategy for de-fusing the situation. PЄTЄRS
Ed, please remember, whilst we are talking of having the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu amended, and closing off the WP:AE request, please don't forget the reason for the AE request in the first place; that being the unnecessary and unwarranted personal attacks upon myself by Vecrumba. And not only that, but the continued personal attacks by the editor against myself. And not only me, but also on other editors. And this is over a long period of time. I am unwilling to allow that side of things drop, given that the editor has lied about the initial personal attack being directed towards another editor; regardless of the actual words clearly showing that it was a personal attack on myself. And the half-truths and complete fabrications that the editor has uttered since then about myself and others, shows that they are relentless.
I do apologise if I have come across as a little bombastic, but unless you have been the victim of serial harrassment, as I have, and still am by the looks of it, you don't know what that does to ones self. And when it is being allowed to continue unabated on your talk page, only makes me think that you are condoning their despicable behaviour and personal attacks. If that is not the case, I will apologise, but as it stands at the moment, it appears that way to me.
So, no, I am unwilling to allow the personal attacks on myself by two editors to go unpunished, as I have not done such a thing to them. Please remember that when closing the AE. --Russavia Let's dialogue 22:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- As this relates to the dispute and resolution thereof, I regret to observe you were the one who initiated the disruption, stirring the Baltic/EE/Russia conflict pot in a manner guaranteed to bring reaction. And even if such reaction were indeed a surprise the first time, you subsequently repeated such stirring since you filed your AE against me, per my diff at same. It is only because I despise tit-for-tat pouring of gasoline on fires that I have not filed an AE counter-suit regarding that disruptive conduct. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 16:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Continuation War
Can you please explain what exactly am i allowed to do given the sanctions you so kindly posted to my talk page? The edit war started right after block ended and i don't know what can i do about it. The discussion is still ongoing in the talk page but like here [2] he insists of resetting the result box regardless that nothing has been agreed in the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I just made a new 3RR complaint about an IP you recently blocked
FYI, [[3]]. Hope I read the tea leaves right. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Review Requested
Hi Ed, hope you're well. When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, could you review my closure of this AN3 report? User: Debresser, the user who filed the report, has contested my closure on my talk page. Despite numerous attempts to explain my rationale, he has continued to badger me and is now threatening (empty threats more or less, but still threats) me with some sort of community action. As an admin who regularily patrols AN3, I was hoping you could provide an unbiased third opinion on my closure. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 08:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing for you to answer; there is no formal review open anywhere. I suggest allowing Debresser to have the last word, and let it go. You've already pointed him to ANI if he wants followup. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Draft amendment
Ed, it would be great if we could draft something up, or at least try to do so, so that we can present it to the Committee for their consideration. I suggest a motion to amend both relevant interaction ban remedies to be amended, with the wording presented as such:
The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Tammsalu. Both parties are directed that their interactions must concentrate only on content, at the risk of draconian measures being taken to enforce deviation from this directive.
At this stage, I am only willing to discuss the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu, and a number of other editors. My reasons for not wanting to include certain editors at this stage is pretty clear I think, and I am certain you can understand why.
This suggested amendment would allow for what is needed, and also makes it crystal clear to editors that content is the only focus, and I don't believe it is gameable, whilst of course it allows for content to the focus and get back to editing. Which is essentially what WP is all about anyway --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Ed, please retract User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Trying_to_lift_one_of_the_EEML_interaction_bans immediately. VM is under an interaction ban with myself, and he is not party to any dispute with myself, but has rather used the AE to break the interaction ban with myself. It is unbelievable that you could ask an editor whom I have made clear is only engaging in personal attacks to a discussion, when they are NOT party to anything. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed, I need to make this very clear. I have been a victim in the past of harrassment by numerous editors, which is why there is an interaction ban. I have made it clear that I am willing to have the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu looked at, and have also made it quite clear that I have no interest in seeking an amendment in relation to two editors who have broken the interaction ban with no good reason (i.e. interjecting themselves into something that has nothing to do with them, and in doing so have only engaged in personal attacks). I am only willing to discuss anything with those editors who have shown a propensity to concentrate only on content, rather than those who have only engaged in outright attacks on myself. Volunteer Marek has also made it quite clear:
Quite honestly, I basically want Russavia to stay the hey away from me
and
STAY AWAY FROM ME PER YOUR INTERACTION BAN, as I have stayed away from you all this time. Then you can have all the good faith in the world.
So why on earth are you now inviting him to be a part of discussions on how to move forward in this area, when he is on record at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia?
If Vecrumba and Volunteer Marek are not removed from any discussion forthwith, please note that I will withdraw myself from any discussions immediately. --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Calm down. If we need to have a meta-discussion about the future of the bans, and if the bans are interpreted so strictly as to prevent any discussion, then we are stuck in a loop and will not make any progress. (Trapped in our own net). If you are not in support of my initiative, I will drop out and you can go it alone. Here is my proposed revision of your above text:
The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Tammsalu. The editors are reminded to use the utmost diplomacy on any articles which they choose to edit in common. If any edit warring occurs, it is understood that some of the topic bans previously imposed or the interaction ban itself might be restored through the discretionary sanctions process. Admins may choose to allow short-term exceptions to any interaction bans still in place under EEML or ARBRB on a case-by-case basis if they consider it helpful for resolving an issue which is open on a noticeboard.
- — EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, proposed amendments are okay with me and will endorse it. In my experience Arbcom tend to come up with their own wording anyway, so I wouldn't agonise over the precise wording here, what matters is the intent. Being an admin ArbCom will take your suggestions onboard in drafting a motion if you make a comment at the amendment request. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, I am ok with that in the most part. The part about concentrating on content only is part of WP:CIVIL policy, so any comments or insinuations on actual editors is banned by part of that policy. I also only support this motion in regards to myself and Tammsalu. Plz notify of the amendment, and I will comment there. --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, the part in relation to:
Admins may choose to allow short-term exceptions to any interaction bans still in place under EEML or ARBRB on a case-by-case basis if they consider it helpful for resolving an issue which is open on a noticeboard.
needs to be scrubbed I believe, as it isn't pertinent to the amendment request in question; that being the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu. And as one can see, it hasn't worked at all, but has rather resulted in a barrage of personal attacks against myself by a couple of editors. Other than that, I am in agreeance with the rest. --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Johnston's proposal sounds like a sensible solution, for now. But in general, I think more sanctions, not less, is the way to go. What concerns me is the persistent incivility and battleground behaviour (a good example is this), which never stops, despite all the warnings and previous (now lifted) sanctions. I think comprehensive interaction bans (forbidding commenting on editors but allowing commenting and editing content) and 1RR restrictions for all editors mentioned in the EEML case (including both the EEML members as well as their critics) are what we need. If such an ostensibly draconian sanction is not admin-politically feasible right now, then at least the more heated and most incivil editors should be restricted, pending consensus among admins for a more general solution. Nanobear (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nanobear, as a person who was indefinitely site banned for posting private information about former EEML members, I'm not sure if you have clean hands in regard to your accusations of battleground behaviour. I note that while you appear to contribute very little to Baltic topics, you seem to initiate or appear in almost every AE case about a Baltic topic editor. Must you turn every thread into a drumbeat to sanction your latest target, Vecrumba? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Ed, in order that this isn't held up any longer, post your draft to the amendment requests, and any pertinent comments can be made after the committee themselves have a look at it, and make their first round of comments. --Russavia Let's dialogue 22:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could comment
On my question here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion spinned off
Since you suggested we move the discussion here, those are my brief thoughts on the i-bans. I think that we do not need on content article and discussion content; I see no reason why any editor out there should not be allowed to edit the same articles as I do, and review and discuss my edits, up to and including reverting my edits or nominating my content for AfD and such. Or why we should not be able to discuss other things, and interact on talk pages directly.
At the same time, I am strongly worried about a tendency some editors to snipe, stalk, harass and poison the well; such an attitude greatly contributes to radicalization and battleground creation. I explain this in more detail here. Bottom line is that editors may and often are able to act in a constructive fashion on content, and when they cannot, 3RR usually forces them to. What we had and still have (look at current AE threads) problems with, was people trying to win the content disputes through wikilawyering or commenting on others (personal attacks) with the intent to make them miserable enough they'd leave Wikipedia so they don't have to hear more vehemence directed at them.
Therefore I'd strongly suggest that the i-bans are clarified/reworded in such a fashion that permits the editors under them do everything, with the singular exception of discussing others. Comment on content, interact with others, but do not comment on the others. I think this should be simple enough to achieve. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- This, certainly, is not very effective in situations where lone archer comes and whitewashes the whole article like this. Taking advantage of the pending bans and muted opponent benefit. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Settlement articles
Hello Ed. There has been a surge in sock-puppetry on settlement articles, all focused on removing the sentence on the legal status of the settlement (see the most recent EvilZionist (talk · contribs)). Dealing with these one at a time is not feasible, as multiple accounts are created each day making the same reverts over and over with different usernames, stepping by the 1RR. There is an explicit consensus for the material, yet it is continually removed. What should be done in this case? I asked at an earlier AE thread if such edits could be treated as vandalism and reverted without regard for the revert restriction. That query went unanswered, so I ask again. Can these removals be treated as vandalism? Or is persistent sockpuppetry allowed to trump that consensus? nableezy - 03:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you want an official change in how these reverts are handled, you should file an SPI with some examples, so we know how big the problem is. There seems to be a discussion at Talk:International law and Israeli settlements which is being held in good faith. If we open the gates wide to reverting changes in the lead (by registered accounts), it could reignite some of the previous disputes. Reverting edits by IPs still doesn't count against the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe again
Here is something I think you need to look at [4]. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be handled for now |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Tolkien family again
Hi Ed, with regards to the Tolkien family you might want to know that I've just opened an SPI for Christopher Carrie and Klone'it. It looks much like Carrie is back with this new account despite being blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christopher Carrie. Regards, De728631 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- And Carrie went on with his off-WP rants in the archived SPI case as an IP. Maybe a range block is in order to prevent him from accessing WP any longer? De728631 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
A separate thread on interaction bans
I would like clarification which states that if editor A and B are under an interaction ban, if editor A gets to an article first, A has exclusive access to edit that article and B is banned from editing or commenting on that article in any manner which touches upon A's edits. That is what it appears is being advocated at the moment. By extension, as there is no time expiration, that also means that if editor A creates or contributes to an article, editor B can never nominate it for deletion, e.g., if A creates something B considers to be an "attack page" (and A would of course be fully aware of the potential of such interpretation), B is powerless to respond in any manner. These would all appear to be the unintended consequences of inappropriate interpretation of the interaction ban and not the intent or purpose of the interaction ban. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Such an irony... Peters, if you really support this view, you should perhaps then visit this? Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Umm, this makes even less sense than Vlad's AE request on me. Vlad and I are not under any kind of interaction ban - unless there's something I don't know about. He's just banned from the topic area, that's it. I am having trouble understanding what these comments/requests are about and apparently so does the administrator User:Heimstern Läufer (though that's probably because he's secretly part of the EEML ;) too).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Vlad, I tire of the cynical EEML WITCH! screaming. After all, I had shown up, said what needed to be said, and departed on WP before ever reading any of the Emails that I allegedly responded to. But so be it. When you have some content you'd like to discuss, point me in the right direction—I do genuinely miss our exchanges where you inform me my ignorance is legendary. And how would our ensuing debate have been enhanced if I had filed an AE accusing you of a personal attack (or anything else)? If I were Oxford-educated, as you indicate you are, I would put my intellect to better use than filing AE requests. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 03:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Vlad, I tire of the cynical EEML WITCH! screaming. After all, I had shown up, said what needed to be said, and departed on WP before ever reading any of the Emails that I allegedly responded to. But so be it. When you have some content you'd like to discuss, point me in the right direction—I do genuinely miss our exchanges where you inform me my ignorance is legendary. And how would our ensuing debate have been enhanced if I had filed an AE accusing you of a personal attack (or anything else)? If I were Oxford-educated, as you indicate you are, I would put my intellect to better use than filing AE requests. PЄTЄRS
- And I did forget about the topic ban, meaning the only way you can participate in said topic area is for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution. (And we all see how leaving that IMHO loophole open has worked to quell the maelstrom in the race & intelligence topic area. Not!) Coincidentally, it seems, your first contribution in nine months to WP is to invoke your only means to influence content in a topic area in which you formerly participated. So, to clarify the above, I invite you to point me to any content which you can rightfully contribute. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 05:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- And I did forget about the topic ban, meaning the only way you can participate in said topic area is for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution. (And we all see how leaving that IMHO loophole open has worked to quell the maelstrom in the race & intelligence topic area. Not!) Coincidentally, it seems, your first contribution in nine months to WP is to invoke your only means to influence content in a topic area in which you formerly participated. So, to clarify the above, I invite you to point me to any content which you can rightfully contribute. PЄTЄRS
Not a complaint
This isn't a complaint, nor a request that you act, but just a concern that there's something I ought to know but don't. I know, of course, that each sysop makes his own decisions for his own reasons in evaluating a listing at EWN, but is there some overarching or generic reason why this one, which I listed, would not have received a response? I acknowledge that just making the complaint appears to have chilled the tag war, is that it? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- It was too hard. Seems to be a case of long-term warring where neither side behaved perfectly. It would maybe have taken an hour's work to figure it out and be sure the response was fair. (The report listed 22 reverts). I was hoping that some other admin would get to it. If the war continues, resubmit. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation and it helps. Much appreciated, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Message from Iluvkolkata
- <Barnstar removed; not necessary. Thank you for the gesture, EdJ >
Appreciate the heads up and for your volunteering on wikipedia! Have responded in detail on Yunshui's original post. Iluvkolkata (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Final draft prior to submission
Removed draft amendment. The one that was filed can be seen at Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Comments on above
This looks good. Perhaps you could also suggest to ArbCom that they change the motion to "any two (or a specific few) uninvolved administrators abrogate an interaction ban restriction we imposed on Russavia, subject to our review"? I'm not sure if they would be willing to go along with it, but it might prevent you having to go back to the Committee in the future? NW (Talk) 18:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- How about if this comes up in the discussion with the arbitrators? I might propose something then. I have noticed that some amendments take a long time to be acted on, so I was hoping to keep this one as simple as possible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You're not gonna believe this...
Hi, Ed. I have to tell you. It looks like I may have misunderstood LoveMonkey. When he first put "Maybe again" on here, it looks like he may have been pointing to Esoglou as the problem, and not me! (I wasn't sure at first.) LoveMonkey just posted on my talk page the following below:
- Esoglou has a history of disruption on Wikipedia and has done a great deal of disservice to opinions and stances he does not like and he has repeatedly been given a free pass. I support Hashem and state that Esoglou does exactly what Hashem is saying he does and I have the diffs to prove it. All anyone has to do is read the list of articles esoglou has distorted the Eastern Orthodox opinion on (theoria (talkpage), filioque, [[5]] and a list of contributions [6] just search esoglou for clarity)and then how he and Richard rewrote those articles to undermine the Eastern Orthodox opinion. WHILE REFUSING TO READ VALID SOURCES ON IT. That and look at the RFC that Taiwon boi created about Esoglou. [7] This is just Esoglou continuing his abuse of contributors here on Wiki. I refuse to edit here as Esoglou has broken his agreement with Ed Johnson at least twice and got NOTHING. Now I got a 24 hour ban, for me standing up to Esoglou and his buddies on the filioque article. Just letting you know Hashem. As this is typical par for the course-- Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
When I said that this person Eso is a problem, POV-pusher, and a hounder, I was not saying it "lightly". I thought you should know what happened here. Why is this happening to LoveMonkey, and nothing seems to happen to Esoglou for his POV and hounding? I'm confused here. I'm sure that LoveMonkey was probably not perfect, but it takes two to tango. Why does it seem that Eso gets away with so much junk? Is it perhaps because he's a bit slicker maybe, and slyly (many times not always) builds some kind of "consensus", while ignoring solid sources and facts? But regardless, do you know how many times Esoglou was reverted and corrected on the "Jehovah" article, for his nonsense, inconsistencies, loaded wordings, and POV-pushing, by a number of reputable and solid editors. Ed, please tell me. What's the deal here? Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Esoglou (or whatever he changes his name this time) is completely the problem and he needs to leave Hashem alone. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Forgive me for being baffled. Will somebody present diffs and say exactly what they are unhappy about? Recent events are more interesting than long-ago events. If you think Esoglou broke an agreement, where did it happen? EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Esoglou (or whatever he changes his name this time) is completely the problem and he needs to leave Hashem alone. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind...
Good Morning. Would you mind taking a look at this...
- Abortion
- 14:31 . . (+1,145) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Mental health: supplanted uncited & incorrect statement with "British Journal of Psychology" meta-analysis )
- 14:45 . . (-1,145) . . NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (Undone (WP:IAR on the 1RR issue; I don't consider my previous reversion to be an issue). I will explain on the talk page.))
- 14:48 . . (+2,239) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Mental health: removed superfluous word "the"; qualified statement with additional reference ) A rather disingenuous edit summary IMHO.
- 14:52 . . (-3,860) . . NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (Undid revision 447865397 by Anupam (talk) -- hold off one second please, I will be placing a statement on Talk:Abortion and Talk:Abortion and mental health.)
Anupam does not seem interested in discussing his proposed edits and might be in violation of 1RR sanctions. Please let me know if there is other action I should take. Thanks. So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't seem to have enough time to look into this. Since the admin User:NuclearWarfare seems to be working on some of these articles, you could ask him if he thinks that any 1RR problems have occurred. He can advise you on how to follow up if you are concerned. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cerejota (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have read your answer there. Perhaps User:Cs32en will have more to say. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Appeal Part II
Hi Ed. I have adopted your advice and recommendations as you outlined here[8] In addition, I will strive to be less argumentative and more collaborative in the topic area. Given my recent edits, the acknowledgement of poor judgment and the promise to engage in a more collaborative approach, is there a small chance that perhaps now you can reverse your two-month extension to the original expiration date of September 4? Any consideration would be greatly appreciated. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's barely a week since our last conversation. I'm not inclined to lift the topic ban now. You are allowed to use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} to ask for your ban to be reviewed. Be aware that you are only banned from ARBPIA topics. There are many articles on Israel which do not mention the I/P conflict that you could improve. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for responding. I do appreciate your feedback. If you feel that I'm being bothersome, please let me know and I will refrain from posting here. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a complaint, redux
You said, "If the war continues, resubmit." See this resubmission. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have left a note for Lambanog at User talk:Lambanog#Edit warring at Coconut oil and hope that he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at this. One minor correction, in your closing statement you say that it's his 23rd revert. It's actually his 12th revert, but the 23rd in the war, with the other 11 being by other editors. Didn't know if you might want to correct that to avoid a possible argument, but your call, of course. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding coconut oil
My answer to Yobol's criticism is on Talk:coconut oil. Basically 2 of the 5 people he claims are editing against me made procedural edits. One requested talk page discussion first, not seeing the previous sections that had been archived; when a new section was started no more was heard. Another editor as Yobol's edit clearly shows added the NPOV section tag, seeing my disagreement with the others. Ronz, WLU, and Yobol have a distinct POV patrolling editing pattern that intentionally or not results in tag teaming, as such I think their assertions of consensus are questionable. Since in the main they do not build articles (I think I can claim to have significantly contributed to more GA/FA class articles than all of them combined) they are not tied down and freely flit from one article to another. On any particular article they may represent the majority at any one time but given the number of editors they edit against over an article's history and across Wikipedia they are actually a minority.
It might be useful to see what happened at another tangentially related article Mary G. Enig, where Ronz, Yobol and one of the other editors Yobol claims to support their stand mediated a little. Maybe after seeing what I was up against there when I was attempting to improve that article that editor decided not to involve himself much further in this one. As I see it one either supports the editor with a track record of building articles or one supports the clutch of editors who have a record of obstructing articles and alienating editors. Lambanog (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are wrong. See here. Of course it didn't stop Yobol from presenting this as evidence for his side [9]. As for not responding, not everyone is in your time zone. I was planning on a response the next time I logged on. Lambanog (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- The overall pattern of reverts at Coconut oil seems to be Lambanog vs. the world. The whole talk page shows the one-sidedness of the debate. The previous 3RR report breaks down all the details of the months-long revert war and all the places where external feedback was sought. Even somebody who has a track record of building articles is expected to abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
arbpia notification
As per Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Jim_Sukwutput can you please notify the user of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I though non-admins could notify, but I saw in the template that is not the case, and since you have done the last few notes, I thought I would ask you. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- This would be a Wikiquette issue if it is justified. I am not convinced this rises to the level of needing an ARBPIA warning. In any case it would make more sense for the *submitter* of the WQA to be bringing the issue here. Jim has made this response in which he asserts the shoe is on the other foot, regarding editors making POV charges in the ITN discussions. You'd have more of a case if you could show that he has a POV which is affecting article content. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- So I am mistaken in thinking ARBPIA applies to ITN? The article in question is the Main Page! I agree the report is boomerangy, and said so there, but I think its fair for all the involved to be subjected to the same strict sanctions when dealing with the same topic. --Cerejota (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Arbcom thinks that warnings under ARBPIA are issued for actual misbehavior. I do not have time to figure out who is the person more responsible for the annoying remarks at ITN. Then I would have to write up what the misbehavior was. Anyway Wikiquette is supposed to be the first-pass solution for incivility that does not have to involve any admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I opened an RfC (which I promised to do before I requested your action) on considering ITN discussion on the ARBPIA topic area to be under ARBPIA, which would mean that notification would be in order anyways. Please notice my request here is not for an enforcement action - ie that you adjudicate - but simply a notification. I understand your position, but I think one should show no restraint with the notifications: anyone who even gets a whiff of ARBPIA and who as a result gets themselves in justified or unjustified DR-worthy situations should be notified. Better to err on the side of caution... ARBPIA is a highly effective tool to contain WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Cerejota (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- For the benefit of any talk page stalkers, I gather that your RfC is located at Wikipedia talk:In the news#RfC: Should WP:ITN area discussions on items in the WP:ARBPIA topic area be subjected to WP:ARBPIA itself?. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I opened an RfC (which I promised to do before I requested your action) on considering ITN discussion on the ARBPIA topic area to be under ARBPIA, which would mean that notification would be in order anyways. Please notice my request here is not for an enforcement action - ie that you adjudicate - but simply a notification. I understand your position, but I think one should show no restraint with the notifications: anyone who even gets a whiff of ARBPIA and who as a result gets themselves in justified or unjustified DR-worthy situations should be notified. Better to err on the side of caution... ARBPIA is a highly effective tool to contain WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Cerejota (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Arbcom thinks that warnings under ARBPIA are issued for actual misbehavior. I do not have time to figure out who is the person more responsible for the annoying remarks at ITN. Then I would have to write up what the misbehavior was. Anyway Wikiquette is supposed to be the first-pass solution for incivility that does not have to involve any admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- So I am mistaken in thinking ARBPIA applies to ITN? The article in question is the Main Page! I agree the report is boomerangy, and said so there, but I think its fair for all the involved to be subjected to the same strict sanctions when dealing with the same topic. --Cerejota (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Ed, I just want to thank you for investing your good faith in us and your time in drafting Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Russavia-Biophys. With this amendment request now open and others like VM having aired their concerns, Arbcom is now a position to examine the issue of these interaction bans. Therefore those AE cases against Vecrumba can now to be closed with no further action as it is in ArbCom's hands now. Thanks again. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree that Vecrumba is now off the hook. If the Committee choses to comment on his role, that is fine, but the issues on the AE board still need AE attention. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well since AE is about enforcing ArbCom decisions, it may well be prudent to wait for the conclusion of the discussion there before acting on these current cases. See the comments of the closing admin of the AfD, recalling both sides were involved in previous EE disputes, which in part vindicates Vecrumba's observation. If this AfD wasn't created the way it was, Vecrumba wouldn't have commented. Both you and TC were contemplating a one week block for both parties, I don't think one should be let off while the other is given a punitive sanction. The whole point of moving forward with a request to Arbcom was to de-escalate for both, not give a way out for one, or was I mistaken in believing this? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Protection template
Hi there, EdJohnston. This morning, you fully protected the page W.E (film) for three days. Do you think you could add the protection template to the page, please? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Done. EdJohnston (talk)
sorry to bother you again
Since you closed the AE report by User:Cs32en, he did this on my talk page [10], not only ignoring common sense and WP:DTTR, but basing himself on a comment done before the AE complaint was in place, and which he used as a diff in the AE (in other words, something that was already under consideration at an AE but was felt to not need any action) - so templating is spurious at best. Please do something about it - it is obvious he needs some prodding to understand why this behavior is unacceptable, in particular, I have not edited or communicated with him since the AE was closed, so this is completely out of left field.--Cerejota (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have left a note at Cs32en's talk page, though possibly not on the same thing which bothered you. I hope this will quiet down soon. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nah its the same general principle, realizing that horsemeat is present and ready for sale. Cs32en seems not to have any notion of how to let it drop.--Cerejota (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
request
Can you please take a look at my contributions to Gaza flotilla raid? I understand the technical nature of 1RR, but I am collaborating in the discussion so I don't see how a topic ban would help. My edits have improved the quality of the article, and editor I reverted hasn't made any requests. I'm just saying, I've contributed a lot. Remember, I self-reverted my original revert. though I'm not sure if that matters. WikifanBe nice 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- It seems your enthusiasm for your cause has been influencing your edits too much. In the past we could try to cool down an editor who seemed to be losing their perspective with a personal 1RR, but now the only option is a topic ban. (Since all the I/P articles are under 1RR). Can you think of any other option? EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the concept of 1RR, which is why I self-reverted less than an hour after my edit. The tag is no longer in the article. The issue, in my opinion, is now a technical matter. If you feel my presence at Gaza flotilla raid has been in bad faith, or disruptive, I will voluntarily recuse myself. But I'm just asking, what is the purpose of this particularly topic ban other than to punish? I've contributed a lot to the topic area, created articles, suggested ITN blurbs (that have been posted), worked at AFDs, etc. I feel like this is getting blown way out of proportion. As an editor, do you really believe I deserve a topic ban? WikifanBe nice 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Since you just returned from your second topic ban, I would expect to see an abundance of caution and a lot of consulting other users. Removing a tag *twice* on one of the hottest I/P articles, Gaza flotilla raid, would not be a smart move for anyone trying to keep a low profile after a previous sanction. Nableezy did leave you a properly-worded prediction of what might happen, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have been cautious, trust me and like I said I did self-revert an hour after the revert. The edit was live for an hour. And then an admin removed the tag under my rationale. It was in good faith, I wasn't attempting to war with Night and if you look at the discussion we are getting a long quite well. Do you feel a topic ban is an appropriate response for this issue? As an editor? WikifanBe nice 19:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- So your position is:
- You did nothing wrong
- You have no suggestions of anything you could do differently in the future to avoid constant AE reports. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just checking that that is your position. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, that is not my answer. I clearly did something wrong, but I did self-revert and followed the discussion in the talk page. I have suggested a voluntary removal from Gaza flotilla raid if you feel that is needed, if disruption is your concern. I understand I need to be more careful when removing tags and other editors contributions. Now what is your answer? I felt I've provided a thorough explanation of the background of this issue, including context. Considering the edits themselves - a removal of a tag (that has since been removed by an admin under my same rationale) - do they justify a topic ban? Have you read my participation in the discussion? ARBPIA is designed to deter users from disruption and battleground behavior. 1RR is a pillar of ARBPIA, but I did self-revert an hour after my second edit. I truly am sorry if the community feels this violation warrants a complete topic ban. WikifanBe nice 20:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- So your position is:
- I have been cautious, trust me and like I said I did self-revert an hour after the revert. The edit was live for an hour. And then an admin removed the tag under my rationale. It was in good faith, I wasn't attempting to war with Night and if you look at the discussion we are getting a long quite well. Do you feel a topic ban is an appropriate response for this issue? As an editor? WikifanBe nice 19:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Since you just returned from your second topic ban, I would expect to see an abundance of caution and a lot of consulting other users. Removing a tag *twice* on one of the hottest I/P articles, Gaza flotilla raid, would not be a smart move for anyone trying to keep a low profile after a previous sanction. Nableezy did leave you a properly-worded prediction of what might happen, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the concept of 1RR, which is why I self-reverted less than an hour after my edit. The tag is no longer in the article. The issue, in my opinion, is now a technical matter. If you feel my presence at Gaza flotilla raid has been in bad faith, or disruptive, I will voluntarily recuse myself. But I'm just asking, what is the purpose of this particularly topic ban other than to punish? I've contributed a lot to the topic area, created articles, suggested ITN blurbs (that have been posted), worked at AFDs, etc. I feel like this is getting blown way out of proportion. As an editor, do you really believe I deserve a topic ban? WikifanBe nice 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)