| Revision as of 03:06, 24 July 2011 editOhms law (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,746 edits →User:Nmatavka restrictions: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:55, 24 July 2011 edit undoCunard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users41,076 edits →User:Nmatavka restrictions: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
| :I have Ohm's law to offer his opinion here of what to do next. ] (]) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | :I have Ohm's law to offer his opinion here of what to do next. ] (]) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::OK, six editors. Five and a half days (how about we just say six days?) Is that enough time and buy in to permanently restrict an otherwise (seemingly) productive editor (at the very least, this certainly isn't a vandal only account)? I ''really'' think that y'all are jumping the gun here, for reasons that I added to the section on AN. That being said, I re-opened the section and added my rational, so I've had my say. Whatever happens now, I'm basically content. I think that it would be... unseemly for any of the three if us here to take further actions (in terms of closing the discussion, or whatever), but that's up to you guys.<br/>— ] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">(] • ])</span> 03:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | ::OK, six editors. Five and a half days (how about we just say six days?) Is that enough time and buy in to permanently restrict an otherwise (seemingly) productive editor (at the very least, this certainly isn't a vandal only account)? I ''really'' think that y'all are jumping the gun here, for reasons that I added to the section on AN. That being said, I re-opened the section and added my rational, so I've had my say. Whatever happens now, I'm basically content. I think that it would be... unseemly for any of the three if us here to take further actions (in terms of closing the discussion, or whatever), but that's up to you guys.<br/>— ] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">(] • ])</span> 03:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::Good faith should usually be extended to good faith contributors. However, ] writes on his userpage: "Hey, my name is Nick, and I've decided to make Misplaced Pages my own personal playground. As you can see by my abnormally huge language bar, I'm a polyglot, and no, I'm not compensating for ''']'''!" Note the not safe for work link of "anything". Have you reviewed his inappropriate userpage creations and the attack language he wrote at ]? Nmatavka's most recent userpage creation contained personal attacks and circumvented community consensus at ]. In light of his behavior, and in light of his decision "to make Misplaced Pages my own personal playground", the participants of the topic ban discussion have concluded that his disruptive behavior should be curbed. Restricting the creation of further userpages will encourage him to concentrate less on "mak Misplaced Pages my own personal playground" and more on building the encyclopedia. I will post a request at ANI for another uninvolved admin to review and close the topic-ban discussion. ] (]) 03:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:55, 24 July 2011
Topic banned user back
Hi Ed, I posted a message on AGK's page (as the admin who dealt with the AE case) but I see that he is on a wikibreak. Would it be possible for you to have a look at the issue or let me know how I should go about ensuring that the editor stops ? See User_talk:AGK#Topic banned user back. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have blocked two ranges per WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae:
- 132.160.43.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and
- 132.160.54.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) per.
- If you see him using any other IPs, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, much appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- He's back violating his topic ban as Lutrinae, here, here, here, and here. I think his account needs to be blocked for a while too. He is not getting the message. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since this is a blatant case, I've issued a block and logged it in WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since this is a blatant case, I've issued a block and logged it in WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- He's back violating his topic ban as Lutrinae, here, here, here, and here. I think his account needs to be blocked for a while too. He is not getting the message. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, much appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Superluminal communication
Can I get you take a look at the recent edit back-and-forth over at Superluminal communication. I fear I'm getting into an edit war with an anon-IP (who I think decided to create a confusing username - User:FyzixFighter2 - in the middle of the dispute). I've tried to initiate discussion on the talk page but the anon-IPs aren't willing to participate. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I take back that the anon-IP hasn't participated on the talk page. Apparently, he or she just did comment on the talk page with this lovely personal attack . --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have left a note for the IP and for User:FyzixFighter2. Let's see what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 13
- Please see my edits in the talk/discussion section on SL. Thank you for taking part in a psychology experiment investigating censorship, the peer review process and self-anointed - self-censorship. One is reminded of how caged animals don't leave the cage when the door is left open. By the way, the IP addresses are not all linked. There have been other contributions. Bowing out for now, bigger fish to fry than the wikipedia self-anointed cognoscenti. Peace. Mmmwahh big kiss.188.29.157.237 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- (Too good to waste, from the SL discussion section)
- "FyzixFighter" views reports of work as worth listing. Singular reports be damned! Tenure-ship is no guarantee of freedom from crankdom and that is why there is the peer-review process. Right now, reasonably respectable professors, worldwide, have pet theories or hobbies in sci-fi writing, pigeon poisoning or cat strangling and we can only view these as eccentricities. A sad fact is that these quirks get worse with age... It is vital that a quorum is made, especially for wilder speculations. Even some hint of a respected career and high office is no measure.
- May I just add, Jimmy Walsh is an Objectivist and one would do well to read Atlas Shrugged and the sections on the "State Science Institute", then take a look at the peer review process... The university system is a centralised (as in centralised planning), socialistic, monopolistic system which is self serving. Compare the Belle Epoch and the time of the Wright Brothers, Edison, Tesla and more, and compare it with today...
- The edits were done in all irony to illustrate how the peer review process kills off new ideas or restricts them to a (usually state funded) clique. You are obviously keen on pushing science forward. Yes we need quality to push out cranks and to stop wasting time and money going down the wrong avenues. The removal edits on the speculative FTL, SL and NC articles illustrate how the status-quo crushes new ideas so that they get no refinement and honing by other minds. You have just taken part in the psychology of a process stultifying science and I thank you for the experiment in human nature. May you have the system and the science you deserve.
- Please unlock so that a really good, relevant reference can be put in: Zbinden, H.; Gisin, N., et al, Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’. Nature, 2008. 454 which FyzixFighter knocked out in their petulance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.157.237 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can offer that reference on the article talk page and use the
{{editsemiprotect}}template to get someone to take action on your request. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can offer that reference on the article talk page and use the
Ed can you block "FyzixFighter" as he has removed a perfectly reasonable edit to the superluminal section bringing in the relevance of general covariance/Relativity, the no-communication theorem and discussion about the speed of quantum decoherence (and a great reference too). I cannot see what this person is up to wilfully vandalising entries for no reason. I think it is apparent now who has the problem. This editing is petulant and demonstrates an intolerance to other people's academic input such that I am convinced now that there are COI issues here. Personally I am finding this person obnoxious and a borderline sociopath.
Please release the block and block "FyzixFighter" instead, if there is any fairness. They did it without even any debate. "FyzixFighter's" history shows this behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.157.237 (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your edits are eccentric and seem to show little regard for consensus. Per a courtesy extended to new users, we have refrained from blocking you. Please do something sensible that will help justify our confidence in you. Complaining about experienced editors and adding strange unsourced things to a controversial article doesn't improve your reputation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- No problem Ed. Not that eccentric, I hope. Though you do need to take a good look at FF's actions. Vandalised a perfectly good edit for what? What is he trying to achieve? Does he not agree that an encyclopaedia should highlight the debate in a subject that is still open. It is meant to be educational after all. We agree that references should be high quality.188.29.157.237 (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
This is what "FyzixFighter" wrote:
- I removed that reference because the way it was being used constituted original synthesis. As the Zbinden article is about "spooky action at a distance" as opposed to "spooky communication/signaling at a distance", which the quantum paragraphs in this article are about, it's not clear to me the relavance without getting into original synthesis. Can you give an example of the sentence(s) you would like added with the Zbinden source as a reference, and where in the article it would go? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
This is what I wrote:
- "spooky action at a distance" is part and parcel of "spooky communication/signaling at a distance" because it refers to the same process, correlated collapse of the wavefunction. This is not even semantics but obfuscation.
- You also removed the sections on General covariance, Relativity, no-communication theorem, quantum decoherence which would, perhaps, not show a deep understanding of the subject matter? None of this is original research but part and parcel of what anyone in the field would know.188.29.157.237 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Clearly "FyzixFighter" doesn't know the subject. Yes, Misplaced Pages, the online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - and block others more knowledgeable from correcting.
If this is the standard, I'm switching to other wikis and Britannica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.157.237 (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please warn
Hello Ed. Could you please formally warn 212.199.205.69 (talk · contribs) about ARBPIA sanctions? This user is a novice, and just violated 1RR on Ariel (city) article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Another admin has given a warning. The IP has been blocked for 3RR violation on Ariel (city). EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkbacks
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Myanmar
I hope, I am still allowed to post about the work on the Myanmar article itself. 222.127.231.29 (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
Editors did not give a valid reason for deleting the sourced text. The source is about pseudoscience not quackery and the text is well sourced and clearly relevant.
I tried to discuss the issues with other editors. See this diff. See diff. See diff. See diff.
Repeatedly editing against core Misplaced Pages policies is not a content issue, it is a conduct issue. Misplaced Pages should rely on a collaborative editing process based on Misplaced Pages policies, which does not work when editors edit against policy when they have a personal disagreement with mainstream reliable peer-reviewed sources. See WP:WEIGHT.
Per DreamGuy: "Trying to turn this into a reason to get QuackGuru blocked is frankly obscene. The content QuackGuru added could have been edited to improve it, but absolutely did not justify that total removal of the entire section through edit warring and blind reverts. That is just organized bullying and attempt to ignore all contributions by an editor. The content was sourced and valuable. It could have been improved, certainly, by streamlining it, but the end result of the actions of Lugdwigs2 and other editors has been strict kneejerk denial of editing privileges. You state that you want him blocked, and clearly that's the same practical end result as things currently stand with a gang of editors blanket removing anything he does. I have seen this kind of behavior on other articles, and that's exactly the nonsense we need to stop. You do not get to determine that an editor is not allowed to make changes of any sort. You and Ludwigs2 do not WP:OWN the article, and it seems like all you are up to is a strategy of civil POV pushing generally, with many instances of it cracking and becoming highly uncivil instead. That is also what the AE sanctions are intended to prevent."
See here.
According to User:DreamGuy is was "organised bulling". QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're offering a post by DreamGuy from last March. This doesn't help with the three open issues: pseudoscience, chiropractic and vertebral artery dissection. Please add your own comment in the currently-open request at WP:AE. In particular, say whether you will accept the proposed deal regarding pseudoscience. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I propose the dispute at pseudoscience be taken the the NPOV noticeboard where uninvolved editors could participate and determine the WP:CON based on Misplaced Pages policy and not a disagreement with mainstream research. I think the debate was mostly by involved editors. I want the broader community to determine the CON for the sourced text from mainstream research. Do you accept my offer. Do you understand there are a lot of editors who believe in pseudocience which makes it difficult for them to edit from a neutral point of view in accordance with policy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am aware of Misplaced Pages's guidelines on WP:FRINGE editing and WP:MEDRS. The complaint at AE is not that you favor mainstream thinking, but that you edit tendentiously and you have a tin ear for consensus. If you will compromise on the three issues named, then consensus is restored and we can all go home. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would you like me to show you that the text is sourced. What text do you think would be sourced rather than deleting the entire paragraph. A compromise would of been rewriting the text than delting it. Editor only reverted and do not attempt to improve the text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- No I do not wish to see your argument that the Matute claim is sourced. It is up to the editors at pseudoscience to evaluate that. It seems that they already have, and they do not buy your argument. Please answer my proposal for a compromise on the Matute reference. See the AE thread for details. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- You claimed I did not convince other people. Here is some evidence there were editors that did support my attempts to improve the text at said articles.
- Pseudoscience: If you take a look at the article history there are other editors that do support the inclusion of the public health matters. There were comments in favor of using the source too. Acording to DreamGuy Removing it entirely seems instead to be an attempt to hide important information from the article to have the end result of pushing a POV. Do you agree with DreamGuy. See Talk:Pseudoscience#Public health issue.
- Chiropractic: See this diff. This this diff.
- DigitalC at chiropractic related articles has a history of deleting sourced text against policy. Replacing sourced text with OR is not constructive. Deleting sourced text while claiming it is unsupported by the source is not constructive. While I'm trying to imporve different articles DigitalC, the nominator at AE, is trying to derail improvements. For example, DigitalC wants to restore an unreliable Talk:Chiropractic#1979 New Zealand Commission report. The source is too old and not current. I looks like DigitalC is reverting my edits at chiropractic because I am them.
- Vertebral artery dissection: There are editors who were convinced that the text is closer to NPOV.
- There is another reference that may resolve the dispute. See Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#Vascular_accidents_after_neck_manipulation:_cause_or_coincidence.3F.
- See Misplaced Pages:Consensus#What_consensus_is: "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Misplaced Pages's principles."
- Do you agree there are WP:FRINGE editors at a lot of the articles I am editing. It is difficult to reach a consensus and improve articles when there is civil POV pushing that don't like what the reliable sources say. Acording to DreamGuy it was civil POV pushing. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good news. A new CON has formed to use better sourcing. See Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#Vascular_accidents_after_neck_manipulation:_cause_or_coincidence.3F. I think the new source might resolve the dispute and editors can move on. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I added the new source that all editors agreed to use. I rewrote the text to match the better sourcing. Then an editor reverted to an older version rather than trying to improve the text. I tried but things did not work out. No consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- No I do not wish to see your argument that the Matute claim is sourced. It is up to the editors at pseudoscience to evaluate that. It seems that they already have, and they do not buy your argument. Please answer my proposal for a compromise on the Matute reference. See the AE thread for details. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would you like me to show you that the text is sourced. What text do you think would be sourced rather than deleting the entire paragraph. A compromise would of been rewriting the text than delting it. Editor only reverted and do not attempt to improve the text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am aware of Misplaced Pages's guidelines on WP:FRINGE editing and WP:MEDRS. The complaint at AE is not that you favor mainstream thinking, but that you edit tendentiously and you have a tin ear for consensus. If you will compromise on the three issues named, then consensus is restored and we can all go home. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I propose the dispute at pseudoscience be taken the the NPOV noticeboard where uninvolved editors could participate and determine the WP:CON based on Misplaced Pages policy and not a disagreement with mainstream research. I think the debate was mostly by involved editors. I want the broader community to determine the CON for the sourced text from mainstream research. Do you accept my offer. Do you understand there are a lot of editors who believe in pseudocience which makes it difficult for them to edit from a neutral point of view in accordance with policy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Infobox creating
Hello, I'm that chap with ban because of Bunjevci if you remember. I was just wondering, if I make an article about a writer or about military conflict I can make infobox?
Because when I said I won't edit infoboxes I thought on fascist-related articles.
And I promise that those writers and military conflits and some medals won't be realted to fascism. You can chack it when I finish articles.--Wustenfuchs 17:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Speak Now
- I replied with this
How come you guys won't even investigate my sources, they are both the billboard. This is a routine calculation. Two numbers from the same source added together dosen't violate any rules. Billboard.com=Billboard.biz. You just have to pay for most of the charts on billboard.biz and billboard.com only has a few charts some of which are just top 25 or 40 however they are identical to the charts on billboard.biz and numbers are from the same source Neilsen Soundscan. According to Neilsen Soundscan Speak Now sold 2,960,000 in 2010 http://www.billboard.com/#/news/eminem-s-recovery-is-2010-s-best-selling-1004137895.story also according Neilsen Soundscan it sold 563,000 in the first half of 2011 http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/top-selling-albums-of-2011-so-far-1005267092.story so it MUST have sold at least 3,523,000 so far. How is this so hard to understand?
Do you think it is enough?
Do you think the numbers should be combined?Theodorerichert (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- The question is not whether you are correct, but whether you are reverting too much. You are expected to convince the other editors working on this article, and issues about content (such as quality of the sources) usually can't be appealed to admins. You should wait until the other article editors accept your argument as convincing. If you will agree to stop the war, you may still avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Nmatavka restrictions
Hiya EdJohnston,
Sorry to have to do this, but I reverted your closure of the AN discussion and addition of restrictions on the WP:RESTRICT page. I don't really feel terribly strongly about not placing restrictions on the person, but 4-5 days of discussion among 3 editors (one of which was the nominator) seems a bit premature, to say the least. I don't think that the restriction itself is terribly well thought out anyway, but that's a subject more appropriate for AN.
Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
In addition to Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs), Mjroots (talk · contribs), HominidMachinae (talk · contribs), Kaldari (talk · contribs), Danger (talk · contribs), and I supported the topic ban. Six editors had supported the topic ban and five-and-a-half days had passed. Community bans from any editing of Misplaced Pages usually last only two days. This editing restriction, which is less harsh, does not need to last for more. EdJohnston, I endorse your closure of the AN discussion as reasonable and believe Ohms law's reversion without consulting you to be inappropriate. Closes by neutral admins should not be reverted when there has been sufficient time and participation. EdJohnston, would you restore your close? Cunard (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have invited Ohm's law to offer his opinion here of what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, six editors. Five and a half days (how about we just say six days?) Is that enough time and buy in to permanently restrict an otherwise (seemingly) productive editor (at the very least, this certainly isn't a vandal only account)? I really think that y'all are jumping the gun here, for reasons that I added to the section on AN. That being said, I re-opened the section and added my rational, so I've had my say. Whatever happens now, I'm basically content. I think that it would be... unseemly for any of the three if us here to take further actions (in terms of closing the discussion, or whatever), but that's up to you guys.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)- Good faith should usually be extended to good faith contributors. However, User:Nmatavka writes on his userpage: "Hey, my name is Nick, and I've decided to make Misplaced Pages my own personal playground. As you can see by my abnormally huge language bar, I'm a polyglot, and no, I'm not compensating for anything!" Note the not safe for work link of "anything". Have you reviewed his inappropriate userpage creations and the attack language he wrote at User:Nmatavka/Images under surveillance? Nmatavka's most recent userpage creation contained personal attacks and circumvented community consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp. In light of his behavior, and in light of his decision "to make Misplaced Pages my own personal playground", the participants of the topic ban discussion have concluded that his disruptive behavior should be curbed. Restricting the creation of further userpages will encourage him to concentrate less on "mak Misplaced Pages my own personal playground" and more on building the encyclopedia. I will post a request at ANI for another uninvolved admin to review and close the topic-ban discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, six editors. Five and a half days (how about we just say six days?) Is that enough time and buy in to permanently restrict an otherwise (seemingly) productive editor (at the very least, this certainly isn't a vandal only account)? I really think that y'all are jumping the gun here, for reasons that I added to the section on AN. That being said, I re-opened the section and added my rational, so I've had my say. Whatever happens now, I'm basically content. I think that it would be... unseemly for any of the three if us here to take further actions (in terms of closing the discussion, or whatever), but that's up to you guys.