| Revision as of 05:03, 12 November 2010 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,229 edits →Topic ban - cont.: Hmm← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:27, 12 November 2010 edit undoHeadbomb (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors454,610 edits →That's a mistake...: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
| ] has now jumped into a discussion about ], who was an influence on Eastern European governments during the Communist era. This seems to be a violation of his topic ban. Could you please look into this. I did mention earlier that Martintg had violated his topic ban when he intervened to support ], who has been indefinitely banned. ] (]) 04:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | ] has now jumped into a discussion about ], who was an influence on Eastern European governments during the Communist era. This seems to be a violation of his topic ban. Could you please look into this. I did mention earlier that Martintg had violated his topic ban when he intervened to support ], who has been indefinitely banned. ] (]) 04:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :It looks like you are edit-warring at ] on the Belgian story of the 5,000 francs. If you believe consensus has been reached to remove this material, can you say where? The ] article is not in Eastern Europe. At the moment we are discussing Marx is trying to rouse the masses in Belgium, France and Germany (Köln), places which sound western to me. ] (]) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | :It looks like you are edit-warring at ] on the Belgian story of the 5,000 francs. If you believe consensus has been reached to remove this material, can you say where? The ] article is not in Eastern Europe. At the moment we are discussing Marx is trying to rouse the masses in Belgium, France and Germany (Köln), places which sound western to me. ] (]) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == That's a mistake... == | |||
| I didn't have a chance to reply before now (I was busy with stuff, which is a shame otherwise I'd have stepped in to prevent this outcome). But is a ''big'' mistake. Maths aren't part of natural sciences, so next time he behaves as illustrated by JohnBlackburne on ], and people go to AE for it, he'll try to wikilawyer his way out of it claiming the ban applied to natural sciences, not maths. | |||
| Additionally, the problem of his violation has been unaddressed as well, and as Blackburne detailed, a 1RR restriction won't do a thing as Brews' problem isn't revert wars but rather that "... few of his edits are reverts. At ] he has more often reworded, moved content around and located irrelevant sources for material to work around consensus. A revert restriction would not effect this (he would just do it more often), and would have no impact on his behaviour on talk pages and other non-article pages." | |||
| So see you at AE again withing a month. If even that. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 05:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:27, 12 November 2010
3RR report
Thanks for your interest. According to guidelines, one should avoid getting directly involved in these things, so I didn't. However, if that is your advice, then I will consider it. However, I am disturbed that you cannot see the string of POV editing and ill tempered feuding going on. However, thanks for your time. I'll make my view known on group then delete from my watchlist.Monstrelet (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- We encourage editors to explain their concern on the article's talk page before taking the issue to admins. You should try to persuade the editors working on that page first. Even if you think it's hopeless, your discussion there could help us to understand the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Iksus2009
Hi Thanks for the warning of the user, but the user still does not get WP:BEP. I am disappointed with the small slap on the wrist. I find his statements violating WP:BEP and harrassment. Here are some new statements: after he was warned.
| Extended discussion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Note the statements: A) "people, let us not forget that we are not in a place like Iran where disagreements with our opinions are banned." B) "It was charged against me that by mentioning the suspected ethnicity of the editors of this page I am somehow attacking them personally. This is a silly charge masquerading as a criticism of a discrimination of some sort. Come on: even judges are expected to recuse themselves from cases if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest. A Persian national who just happens to want to deemphasize Nizami's Azeri link to the benefit of the Persian link is a legitimate target for such charges of conflict-of-interest. " Emphasizing the user's nationality, country and etc., and trying to harrass them is not legitimate wikipedia editorshiop. For example, if it was a forum, I can respond like a forum to such people. But this is supposed to be Misplaced Pages. Either people play by the rules or they should not be editing. If there is going to be just another warning instead of some action by admins, then eventually these things will degrade to all users. Admins needs to take of such users. His first edits should have been enough for a ban: When one group is doing it here , admins need to stop it at first incidence by a severe block, so that other users do not do the same. Disciplince works. Sure a person can take insults once, twice, but there is a limiting point when admins do not do anything about it, then things escalate. That is why admins like Moreschi and etc. have left, as Misplaced Pages is taking such abusive users too lightly. Please note my previous complaint here: . And please note my new complain. I believe a block and a topic ban from the article is a legitimate request. The article has had 8 or so archive pages, because of arguments, and a concensus was reached. This user has been told of that, but he is ignoring it, and then attacking the backgorund of other users. Misplaced Pages is not about making fun of other people's nationality. Thank you and I hope legitimate Arbcomm Armenian/Azerbaijan violations are given, rather than a 3 hour ban. Because the user has already poisened the atmosphere with his words, and it is hard to be professional with him, given his previous comments. He was warned, and he failed to read the warnings, and still continued in his abusive manner. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston (May I call you Ed? It is easier. I admit my name is not easy) Well, I admit, you were right that the user has crossed the path of no return and as you said: "I believe this user is rushing headlong toward an indef block, but we need to give him a chance to get there on his own. " He wasn't listed under the AA names and has not been put under AA sanctions. So admins are free to take out of AA measure. He was warned once by Nishkid64, and once today. I warned him in my last comment about WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA in the talkpage of the article. But as an admin, you can take actions. Here is part of the latest comments: " So with this in mind, here is the promised political opinion: I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism, to talk some sense to them, to bring them up to date with the modern realities of the world (from being stuck in a time period three thousand years past), and, and I think Azerbaijan has taken the right political step by aligning itself with US and Israel, because it correctly recognizes in Iran a danger: its relgious fundamentalism hungry for infecting the nearby, and its chauvinism hungry for domination." . And this too: " Since I am already going to be banned anyways (in an Iranian style censorship. Well, at least I will not be whipped ... I hope, or be issued a Fatwa against). ". This was just a portion of the latest comments. The user's acount is 1 years old and he has been warned multiple times today and last year. Do you really expect that such a user can be compromised with in the talkpage? Are other users supposed to forget all of his hatred and act like nothing happened and continue discussion? The user is asking to get banned as he states too and you predicted: "Ok, now you can go ahead and ban me. I plan not to use Misplaced Pages anyways. I think the Britannica subscription price is worth it, which I have realized thanks to this exchange. So thank you! As they say, you get what you pay for.", "I have no intent of wasting my time any more than I already have.".. etc. Well I think you can give him the oppurtunity of not wasting his time and the time of other users (for complaining to admins). It is really a waste of my time that I had to think about and deal with such a user, I was getting whooped in ping pong because I was thinking about his comments. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Hi, Are you suggesting that such user can go on other topics? Or such forum/hatred talks do not spill over to other topics? I believe you are being too forgiving. We need some admins with some seriousness. If someone knows they can get away with so much crap before they are banned, then that would be disastarous for Misplaced Pages. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC) |
This one was worst
Here is part of the latest comments: " So with this in mind, here is the promised political opinion: I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism, to talk some sense to them, to bring them up to date with the modern realities of the world (from being stuck in a time period three thousand years past), and, and I think Azerbaijan has taken the right political step by aligning itself with US and Israel, because it correctly recognizes in Iran a danger: its relgious fundamentalism hungry for infecting the nearby, and its chauvinism hungry for domination." . And this too: " Since I am already going to be banned anyways (in an Iranian style censorship. Well, at least I will not be whipped ... I hope, or be issued a Fatwa against). ". This was just a portion of the latest comments. The user's acount is 1 years old and he has been warned multiple times today and last year. Do you really expect that such a user can be compromised with in the talkpage? Are other users supposed to forget all of his hatred and act like nothing happened and continue discussion? The user is asking to get banned as he states too and you predicted: "Ok, now you can go ahead and ban me. I plan not to use Misplaced Pages anyways. I think the Britannica subscription price is worth it, which I have realized thanks to this exchange. So thank you! As they say, you get what you pay for.", "I have no intent of wasting my time any more than I already have.".. etc. Well I think you can give him the oppurtunity of not wasting his time and the time of other users (for complaining to admins). It is really a waste of my time that I had to think about and deal with such a user, I was getting whooped in ping pong because I was thinking about his comments. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your proposal at WP:AE
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Martintg
It seems that you have only considered the original request by TFD, and ignored the topic ban violations brought forward in the other statements. I do agree that your proposal addresses the original complaint, but it overlooks the other issues. How are we to proceed? Should I file a separate enforcement request stating my complaints, or is there some other way to get administrators to consider the issues I have presented in my statement? -- Petri Krohn (talk)
- I suggest you expand your original comments in the AE, with a section called 'Response to EdJohnston' or some such. Some of your statement was a bit vague, like saying you were thinking of filing an SPI. Details would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that both Petri Krohn and Offliner have a number of additional issues beyond the original AE report, as suggested by this. I suspect the matters that they bring are more complex than can reasonably handled on AE and suggest they be redirected to via ArbCom and dealt with there. --Martin (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Re: Constitution of Estonia. I think you are making a false assumption on the premise that there is currently no dispute or edit war at the article. This is only because users opposed to his POV have adapted a policy of total non-interaction with him. It has no correlation with the dispute in the real world. I loath to even imagine the edit warring that would start if anyone not sharing his EE views would dare to edit the article. Would it make you more convinced if I tried? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If other people won't interact with him, should that be considered *his* problem? Please follow this up at the AE itself if you want it to be considered in the closing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Re: Constitution of Estonia. I think you are making a false assumption on the premise that there is currently no dispute or edit war at the article. This is only because users opposed to his POV have adapted a policy of total non-interaction with him. It has no correlation with the dispute in the real world. I loath to even imagine the edit warring that would start if anyone not sharing his EE views would dare to edit the article. Would it make you more convinced if I tried? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment
Since Martintg removed my comment from his talk page, I will repost it here:
It's not just Martintg's participation in unblock discussions, but also his failure to disengage (even after a block) from mainspace POV disputes in the EE topic area, as I tried to explain here. The edit I mentioned seems to be a clear violation of Martintg's topic ban and similar to the edits he was blocked for before. Offliner (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Should be redirected to ArbCom
In light of the apparent intense lobbying by both Petri Krohn and Offliner I suspect the matters that they bring, particularly this, are more complex than can reasonably handled on AE and suggest they be redirected to ArbCom and dealt with there. As an admin, you can refer the AE case to ArbCom for action, it as been done before. --Martin (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Next WP:USPP assessment
Hi EdJohnston! Since Amy Roth's out on maternity leave, I'm pushing out the next round of assessments she needs. This time, we're comparing your assessment to readers' assessments. And instead of us assigning you articles, we're letting you pick! The full list of topics is on a subpage of the Assessment tab on our WikiProject. Please choose 10 of the articles to assess. Use the link in the section title to go to the appropriate version of the article.
Thanks for all your help! Please let me know if you have any questions! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy withdrew his complaint
The complaint against me has been withdraw, yet I was notified of sanctions on my page? What is going on here?--Geewhiz (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I expect that it works like the 3RR noticeboard. The admins reserve the right to take action on any issue submitted there, even if the original person changes their mind. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that this action is unfair and as I noted on my talk page, I am still waiting for it to be struck. I was reported because the complaining editor was taking out his frustrations after not being able to revert more than once a day. The AE board is being used for this purpose over and over. It was done in the heat of the moment. Clearly the penalties that are being handed out are not working and creating even more disruptive behavior. I have over 28,000 edits to my credit and have worked constructively on thousands of articles (please look carefully at my user contributions). I find it more than odd that none of this is taken into consideration. --Geewhiz (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Idiot and retarded comments
I saw that you closed on Nableezy's AE. I think that request was not really that bad but the last comment before closing jumped out. If he wants to refer to your comment as retarded it isn't a big deal but when he tells another that he is an idiot then straight out says he doesn't care if he is blocked it is too far. So did you take this into account on your close (it was unrelated) or is yet another AE the next step? If you missed it then no worries. Another AE might be the next step (although everyone therer is begging for blocks for just being there)/ But, enough is enough. He has been to AE for being uncivil already and that was too much. So when does it stop?Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll let another admin handle that if they wish to. Just now I'm trying to think of a response to the general deterioration of I-P editing which Phil Knight pointed out. Some people have become very angry who are usually not that angry. And it's not just a few enthusiasts like Drork, it's the regular I-P editors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- So can you answer if you took this into consideration while closing? Simple yes or no with no elaboration required. If not, I will open a new case.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did not see this before I closed. File away. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Probably stupid on my part (hardly anyone has clean hands in the topic area, unfortunately) but done. Thank you for the quick response.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I did not see this before I closed. File away. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- So can you answer if you took this into consideration while closing? Simple yes or no with no elaboration required. If not, I will open a new case.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- So the case against him closes - and User:Nableezy is threatening new editors, yet again.--Nopleazy (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Pawel + Massacres of Poles in Volhynia + 1RR = FML
1, 2, 3 Sorry for my own revert, he was removing sourced information and restoring other stuff that was being hammered out on the talk page..calling when I add a citation "vandalism"...now he's deleting other sourced numbers and going on a rampage. I give up for the next 23 hours...--Львівське (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again. Just a heads up but Pawel is on course for an edit war on the Lviv article, inserting some weird stuff and going about things in his usual, blunt force manner. 1, 2, 3 --Львівське (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Topic ban
Despite Martintg's undertaking, he appears to be continuing to become involved in block disputes. This case involves User:Marknutley. Martintg is certainly aware that although Marknutley is topic-banned from Climate Change articles, the procedures taken against him began because of his edits to articles from which Martintg is topic-banned. One editor clearly states in the discussion thread, "However, TDF, Radeksz and Mark (and others) are all involved in a hot content dispute at Holodomor and Communist terrorism. Martintg's involvement in discussion of the block of an editor involved Communist terrorism was the original basis of my posting to AE. TFD (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is confusing, but I think Martintg was commenting at ANI on an SPI which was filed against him by Petri. Defending himself seems reasonable. The AE that you filed was about him trying to defend someone else, and he agreed to stop doing that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Although he brought up an SPI filed against him, he was commenting on a discussion thread about an editor who was the subject of an SPI for accounts editing both CC articles and EE articles, although this thread was about possible legal threats on his talk page. TFD (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Closing an AN3 where you commented
- I have closed this report with no action, but I have left some advice for the parties at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: stale, but advice). Please comment or let me know if you think there is anything else we can do here. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Lvivske
I respect albeit disagree with your decision regarding Lvivske's breaching of WP:3RR. However he made two serious, unfounded accusations against me for meatpuppeting and sockpuppeting, which is absolutely ridiculous considering DonaldDuck is a well established editor with whom I've never had any personal ties to in the past. This is considered a personal attack and I do not wish to ignore it, since I find this sort of behavior (blind personal accusations due to a content dispute) reprehensible. The fact that he has not filed a sockpuppet report against me is evidence that he does not take his own accusations seriously, and meant it as an attack. LokiiT (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I never accused you of sock puppetry, only raised the question of possible WP:MEAT, but I csn see in the diffs now that he joined in after you posted the Goble question on another filing, and after he was quickly denounced as towing fringe accusations, thats when he joined in on the editing of the page in similar fashion to you. I'm all for further discussion on the article, and I encourage you to take part; just keep the CIA conspiracy out of it or we'll end up back where we started.--Львівське (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I never breached 3RR so calm down. In the 3 diffs where I countered you, I added sources, so was just following WP:PROVIT following your removal of sources/content. Blanking entire sections is far more disruptive than what you're claiming against me. Calm down.--Львівське (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- You never breached 3RR, yet you made 5 reverts in some 24 hours. Interesting. You never accused me of sockpuppetry, you only threatened to file a sockpuppet report. Interesting again. Moreover, telling people to "calm down" during a dispute in which you're involved, which you've done repeatedly, is inflammatory and condescending. Further, your accusations that my good faith edits were vandalism is another personal attack. If this were the case, how is it that you've agreed to my original blanking of said content? This is getting out of hand and I would like EdJohnston to look into it, please. I'm not going to continue arguing with someone who so blatantly assumes bad faith and throws out personal attacks and unfounded accusations in every second line. This is exactly what drove me away from wikipedia for so long; that and the administration's lack of dealing with people like you.LokiiT (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I never agreed to your blanking of the content, I just can't deal with your psychosis any more today. I said I'll put it on hold to get more sources together to plug a hole in this BS you're instigating. I brought up filing a sockpuppet case simply because it would be a natural course of action given how you are escalating this dispute to more and more vitriolic levels. 5 reverts in 24hrs? another source, rv section blanking,adding a journal....the only time I engaged in a full out reverts without adding content to justify its inclusion was to combat section blanking without cause 4, where you're coming up with this 5 reverts story is beyond me. And yes, I say calm down because you seriously need to take a breath and step away from the keyboard. Maybe you should take another wiki-break if you can't act with civility without getting stressed out. There isn't anything to look into further, just cooperate reasonably on the talk page of the article and no conflict will arise.--Львівське (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Psychosis? Really? Proving my point yet again. LokiiT (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have blocked User:Lvivske 24 hours for personal attacks, per this notice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Psychosis? Really? Proving my point yet again. LokiiT (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I never agreed to your blanking of the content, I just can't deal with your psychosis any more today. I said I'll put it on hold to get more sources together to plug a hole in this BS you're instigating. I brought up filing a sockpuppet case simply because it would be a natural course of action given how you are escalating this dispute to more and more vitriolic levels. 5 reverts in 24hrs? another source, rv section blanking,adding a journal....the only time I engaged in a full out reverts without adding content to justify its inclusion was to combat section blanking without cause 4, where you're coming up with this 5 reverts story is beyond me. And yes, I say calm down because you seriously need to take a breath and step away from the keyboard. Maybe you should take another wiki-break if you can't act with civility without getting stressed out. There isn't anything to look into further, just cooperate reasonably on the talk page of the article and no conflict will arise.--Львівське (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- You never breached 3RR, yet you made 5 reverts in some 24 hours. Interesting. You never accused me of sockpuppetry, you only threatened to file a sockpuppet report. Interesting again. Moreover, telling people to "calm down" during a dispute in which you're involved, which you've done repeatedly, is inflammatory and condescending. Further, your accusations that my good faith edits were vandalism is another personal attack. If this were the case, how is it that you've agreed to my original blanking of said content? This is getting out of hand and I would like EdJohnston to look into it, please. I'm not going to continue arguing with someone who so blatantly assumes bad faith and throws out personal attacks and unfounded accusations in every second line. This is exactly what drove me away from wikipedia for so long; that and the administration's lack of dealing with people like you.LokiiT (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I never breached 3RR so calm down. In the 3 diffs where I countered you, I added sources, so was just following WP:PROVIT following your removal of sources/content. Blanking entire sections is far more disruptive than what you're claiming against me. Calm down.--Львівське (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I never accused you of sock puppetry, only raised the question of possible WP:MEAT, but I csn see in the diffs now that he joined in after you posted the Goble question on another filing, and after he was quickly denounced as towing fringe accusations, thats when he joined in on the editing of the page in similar fashion to you. I'm all for further discussion on the article, and I encourage you to take part; just keep the CIA conspiracy out of it or we'll end up back where we started.--Львівське (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, regarding the article lock, it seems pointless now since Lvivske has finally conceded his position and agreed to leave the content out. LokiiT (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- The protection may lead to some discussion, which is beneficial. I'll take another look tomorrow. Since User:DonaldDuck is a long-time editor with an interest in Russian topics, it is hard to take seriously any suggestion of meat puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Duck
Hi, Ed! An IP sock of SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) has just announced herself on another user's page. Would you consider blocking the IP as a formality? It's been tagged, and I know IPs can't be blocked forever, but this is a banned user who refuses to stop socking. Thank you :> Doc talk 05:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Kindly disregard. The troll emerged with a vengeance to proudly proclaim it was an editor she helped "go over the edge", JohnBonaccorsi (talk · contribs), and I believe she's right. I don't expect too much admin help with this one in general (they seem to drop off like flies after getting involved). Thanks anyway! Doc talk 06:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Further sockpuppetry by BrianBeahr
Indefinitely block editor User:BrianBeahr is back in action again - as sockpuppet User:Black00001 - on the St Kilda Football Club and related articles. Thanks in advance for attending to this. Afterwriting (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- .... and again with St00001. Thanks. Jevansen (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done also, I see that Black00001 and St00001 were created only three minutes apart on November 4. This could make it worthwhile to open a new SPI and ask the checkusers to look for sleeper accounts, if one of you is so inclined. Sleepers are a supply of new socks that have been created but not used yet. Checkusers might also find the IP used to create these accounts and block it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- .... and again with St00001. Thanks. Jevansen (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Ginsburgh/Inbari
Thanks for your post on my page -- I'm happy to discuss further. I'm doubtful about the appropriateness of omitting the sentence you refer to, though. The fact is, Ginsburgh did encourage and support the killing of non-Jews as in the Goldstein incident. So it's hard for me to see how Inbari's analysis is off-track here. This is what appears earlier in the section on the Ginsburgh article, and it really ought to be non-controversial to quote Inbari to this effect. It isn't really synthesis even -- it is simply Inbari explaining how Ginsburgh got to the position that he had in fact adopted at the time of Goldstein. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is possible that further discussion by the editors at Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh or at BLPN may come around to your view. Still, the admins at 3RR need to use the 20,000-foot view of BLP, and this is the hardest sentence to justify at present. If the article is protected, some admin will have to decide what to keep in the article. The fact that the BLPN debate is still running works against your side of this dispute. You should be willing to wait until the review is concluded. If the other guy keeps trying to beautify the article after the BLP issue has been answered as well as it can be, a block for long-term warring might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I know it seems difficult to justify because it seems so extreme. But again the fact is that Ginsburgh really did say these things, and Inbari is analyzing what he actually said. I think it's also worth noting that no-one has voiced any support of M656's view (and at least one editor against). But: I'm happy to agree to restoration minus that one sentence as a solution for now, with further discussion at BLPN and the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I looked into it further and left a comment at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I know it seems difficult to justify because it seems so extreme. But again the fact is that Ginsburgh really did say these things, and Inbari is analyzing what he actually said. I think it's also worth noting that no-one has voiced any support of M656's view (and at least one editor against). But: I'm happy to agree to restoration minus that one sentence as a solution for now, with further discussion at BLPN and the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Floating point
Actually I believe the IP's edit is better at Floating point. Why didn't the person reverting a second time put a comment on the talk page? If they then ignored that perhaps go further but blocking IP's for what at worst would be low level edit warring seems inappropriate to me. It's not as though they have three reverts yet even. Dmcq (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since November 2 I saw three different IPs reverting the same thing from the article, without discussing on the talk page. At the time, I suspected socking, but maybe that's not the case. Reverting without discussion is one of the criteria often used for edit warring, which does not require three reverts. If a consensus were to form at Talk:Floating point that semiprotection is undesirable, it might be lifted. How would you feel about 'coefficient' instead of significand? That idea was previously floated on talk. Certainly the IPs can still join the talk discussion that you started, if they feel like explaining their objection to 'significand.' EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Blanking Information
Removal of sourced information by User:Paweł5586 here: . (I would revert but is there a limit of one revert per user or per day by any user on this page?)Faustian (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've left a warning for Paweł5586 that he may be blocked. The article called Massacres of Poles in Volhynia is under a 1RR restriction due to WP:DIGWUREN. Most people who break the 1RR there are willing to self-revert, and only two editors have needed extra persuasion. Unfortunately, Paweł5586 is one of the two, and time is running out. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've punched my revert card for the day and am taking a step back. Considering he removed content that others were willing to discuss (and is being discussed on the talk page), that he had to remove neutral statements like "numbers are still being discussed" to insert his high-range numbers, etc. I just didn't see anything salvageable that I was willing to work around. I spent some good time yesterday trying to clean the article up and get it as neutral as possible and it seems with Pawel in the loop it's going to be a constant struggle. --Львівське (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Update to 3RR report you handled
It turns out the IP editor discussed at this 3RR report that you handled also edited with an account (User:Mark Osgatharp) to circumvent the IP block and page protection. He also made personal attacks related to the incident. I posted an update on noticeboard and thought you might want to take a look. Cheers! Novaseminary (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Teramo
Hi! As expected, the Teramo bull returned with a revertion to a version full of wikimistakes and ignorance of how a serious encyclopedia should be written (just to mention one, the fact he addresses the user as "you can reach"...). This without the matter of which version is to be preferred has been settled. Can you help? Thanks and good work --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have issued a block of DDF19483 (talk · contribs). Your own actions there can be questioned. You should ask for a WP:Third opinion, or use some other kind of WP:Dispute resolution, before you make any more reverts at Teramo. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Your remarkable change of view on Headbomb's talk page
Hi EdJohnston:
I was surprised to read your abrupt change of views from attempting to dissuade Headbomb from continuing to searching for means to impose sanctions.
I am concerned that you may have been swayed by Headbomb's incorrect allegation "that Brews behaviour has been problematic there as well) making statements about the physical nature of things such as "As discussed in more detail below, Einstein's theory of relativity significantly modifies this view." in Pythagorean theorem and reference physics books such as The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, by Roger Penrose, to argue his points".
My original statement provides explicitly the text I introduced, and points out carefully that Headbomb's allegation above is unfounded. A careful comparison of the text before any changes made by myself supports my statement that the Penrose reference and the comment about Einstein precede my changes and I am not responsible for them, and did not add this remark about a later discussion of special relativity, or comment upon physics in any way.
Perhaps you have other reasons for changing your mind in this matter, but it would be unfortunate if it were a result of uncritical acceptance of Headbomb's misinformation.
I regret that I will be leaving town in a few hours and will be unable to pursue this matter further for several days. Brews ohare (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I still recommend that the case be closed by accepting your offer to observe a 1RR/week on all articles regarding natural science. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
About the warning
OK! undertood, btw are you willing to mediate, there are mediators on wikipedia, under the terms of the arbitration, how come there isn't any here? How should I deal with a user who moved a page withou concensus? Magotteers (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Topic ban - cont.
User:Martintg has now jumped into a discussion about Karl Marx, who was an influence on Eastern European governments during the Communist era. This seems to be a violation of his topic ban. Could you please look into this. I did mention earlier that Martintg had violated his topic ban when he intervened to support User:Marknutley, who has been indefinitely banned. TFD (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like you are edit-warring at Karl Marx on the Belgian story of the 5,000 francs. If you believe consensus has been reached to remove this material, can you say where? The Karl Marx article is not in Eastern Europe. At the moment we are discussing Marx is trying to rouse the masses in Belgium, France and Germany (Köln), places which sound western to me. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a mistake...
I didn't have a chance to reply before now (I was busy with stuff, which is a shame otherwise I'd have stepped in to prevent this outcome). But this is a big mistake. Maths aren't part of natural sciences, so next time he behaves as illustrated by JohnBlackburne on Pythagorean theorem, and people go to AE for it, he'll try to wikilawyer his way out of it claiming the ban applied to natural sciences, not maths.
Additionally, the problem of his violation has been unaddressed as well, and as Blackburne detailed, a 1RR restriction won't do a thing as Brews' problem isn't revert wars but rather that "... few of his edits are reverts. At Pythagorean theorem he has more often reworded, moved content around and located irrelevant sources for material to work around consensus. A revert restriction would not effect this (he would just do it more often), and would have no impact on his behaviour on talk pages and other non-article pages."
So see you at AE again withing a month. If even that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)