| Revision as of 18:19, 13 October 2012 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,224 edits →Dilemma: Neither party made a good showing in the recent AE← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:30, 13 October 2012 edit undoNmate (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,033 edits →DilemmaNext edit → | ||
| Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
| He reported me in his lates RFA, yet he had the temerity to claim there that "I accuse him of various things without any solid evidence" while it was him who lodged an RFA against me. Behaving this way takes some chutzpah....................you let Iadrian yu elude a well deserved sanction under AE leaving me in the pickle of what should be done with him, because this problem won't resolve itself. I may still fall prey to Iadrian yu's harrasments, and his aggressively trollish behaviour. --] (]) 18:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | He reported me in his lates RFA, yet he had the temerity to claim there that "I accuse him of various things without any solid evidence" while it was him who lodged an RFA against me. Behaving this way takes some chutzpah....................you let Iadrian yu elude a well deserved sanction under AE leaving me in the pickle of what should be done with him, because this problem won't resolve itself. I may still fall prey to Iadrian yu's harrasments, and his aggressively trollish behaviour. --] (]) 18:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :In my opinion, was frivolous, but your response to his complaint wasn't effective either. Admins become discouraged when neither side is saying anything they can understand. Better to leave it the way it is now. If you don't have to interact with him, you should leave him alone. If a dispute occurs about a particular article and you have to file a complaint with admins, explain clearly how the article benefits from your contribution, and don't focus on what he may have done to you personally. ] (]) 18:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | :In my opinion, was frivolous, but your response to his complaint wasn't effective either. Admins become discouraged when neither side is saying anything they can understand. Better to leave it the way it is now. If you don't have to interact with him, you should leave him alone. If a dispute occurs about a particular article and you have to file a complaint with admins, explain clearly how the article benefits from your contribution, and don't focus on what he may have done to you personally. ] (]) 18:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::I agree with you that my response was not effective. Iadrian yu's reports do not make too much sense to me, and I can't respond to anything that does not make sense to me. Without being able to figure out how Iadrian yu comes to such weird conclusions regarding my edits, I always begin looking askance at him when reading his reports. I usualy do not edit articles Iadrian yu edits. | |||
| :::Iadrian can't nail me based on any valid evidence. Therefore, he has no other option but to press charges using the latest edits of mine with outright false misrepresentations and the diffs simply can't support what he claims they show while mourning and groaning that there is so much disruption coming from me to Misplaced Pages that needs to stop at once. What a contemptible behaviour ! | |||
| ::::Iadrian yu requested for arbitraion against me shortly after I had requested that ]'s talk page access be revoked. Just as Samofi, Iadrian yu likes editing the English Misplaced Pages alongside Hungarian users of whose favourtie subject is history, to represent the the interest of the opponent's side in writing articles , where his contributions almost always appear to be aimed at removing Hungarian-related content, or modifying content to be more anti-Hungarian. | |||
| :::::The reason why Iadrian yu requested for arbitration against me was that Iadrian yu thinks that the anti-Hungarian side may loose of their turf after Samofi's talk page access was revoked. I do not endorse this this type of way of thinking at all which seems to be very much like battleground behaviour at the highest degree, but that is what Iadrian yu is up to. Very disappointing.--] (]) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:30, 13 October 2012
|
Folding@home FA nom
Sorry to bug you over this if you've watchlisted the page, but if not I wanted to let you know that I've responded to your comments and made some changes to the prose. • Jesse V. 06:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think I'm finishing off Emw's comments, so we're getting close to waiting on your final comments/opinions if you have any. Are you done with the page? • Jesse V. 19:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Ooops or not?
On the EW board, did you mean to say unless there is some pattern of long-term warring, there is no obvious reason to sanction StillStanding.? He is the orginator of the EW and I am the alledged edit warrior. I don't recall anyone asking for sanctions against him, so I thought you might have made a mental switcheroo. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is normal to look at any reverts by the submitter. Also, Arthur Rubin said "..but the two immediate reverts by Scientiom, and the single unjustified revert by the nominator, may also separately constitute edit-warring." EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sanity check
Please let me know if you believe this is inappropriate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't object to your comment, but I don't see why it is necessary. Your comment may somehow get others excited, in spite of your intention. Why not wait and see if any problem occurs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it was necessary so that there's a public record in a location relevant to the article, and mostly to make sure nobody inadvertently teased LGR by coming to them with issues related to the article. Unfortunately, it did get someone excited. In fact, since then, they went to WP:ANI about it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Anyhow, for better or for worse, the matter is settled. Thanks for your input; I appreciate your lack of bias. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it was necessary so that there's a public record in a location relevant to the article, and mostly to make sure nobody inadvertently teased LGR by coming to them with issues related to the article. Unfortunately, it did get someone excited. In fact, since then, they went to WP:ANI about it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
ANI/ANEW results around Bitcoin
I see that these "incidents" are closed, however the situation is still not really resolved; HowardStrong has continued to revert the correction even after he had agreed to it, and I have no reason to expect he would not again if I restored it. How can we get this article corrected without allowing him to turn it into an edit war again? Should I make one more attempt to get it fixed? --Luke-Jr (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- What correction are you speaking of, and where did he agree? EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- The BTC symbol correction; though he left it listed, he removed all the citations for it. HowardStrong agreed to the proposed compromise here. --Luke-Jr (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of any correction to which he is speaking of. I have added to the article but I have not reverted any changes.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I will say this user has started edit wars in the Bitcoin article in the past. His changes are often very out there and thus controversial; yet he pushes them. (e.g. a tonal section in the Bitcoin article). I would take his claims with a grain of salt. --HowardStrong (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Finally, Luke-Jr is very close to the Bitcoin subject matter. He is a developer of Bitcoind. https://github.com/luke-jr This may violate Misplaced Pages policy regarding close subject matter.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it is a Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest. He can't be making controversial changes without clear consensus. Reported. Thanks!--HowardStrong (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not Luke has a COI, it doesn't take away the need for you to get consensus for your own changes. COI does not disqualify Luke from editing here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll happily have my changes reverted if they are truly against consensus. Luke-Jr cannot provide proper consensus as a impassioned developer with an agenda and alone. I'll happily take a que from others, in which case has had little to no controversy.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you need to get outside opinions (besides Luke) that can be arranged. See WP:Dispute resolution. If you seem to be using procedural gimmicks to push Luke out of the picture, that can backfire on you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that editors agree that some kind of a capital 'B' with one or more vertical strokes through it can be included in the 'Symbol' line of the infobox, as a symbol for Bitcoin, analogous to the '$' for dollars. It appears that Luke-Jr made an entry in the infobox here on October 3 in which two alternative versions of the B symbol are included. It appears to me that there is now only one symbol in the infobox, so somebody must have removed Luke's alternative. In Luke's edit summary he says "Both symbols per agreement reached on Talk page." Has Talk:Bitcoin#Removed non-citations from the second symbol reached a consensus on this? If any more reverts occur before clear consensus is found, the article may be protected against editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It appears that consensus might be found to use an image of a double-stroked B in place of the composed Unicode symbol that Luke originally wanted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that editors agree that some kind of a capital 'B' with one or more vertical strokes through it can be included in the 'Symbol' line of the infobox, as a symbol for Bitcoin, analogous to the '$' for dollars. It appears that Luke-Jr made an entry in the infobox here on October 3 in which two alternative versions of the B symbol are included. It appears to me that there is now only one symbol in the infobox, so somebody must have removed Luke's alternative. In Luke's edit summary he says "Both symbols per agreement reached on Talk page." Has Talk:Bitcoin#Removed non-citations from the second symbol reached a consensus on this? If any more reverts occur before clear consensus is found, the article may be protected against editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I noticed you had been discussing this issue and thought I'd point out that the user is attempting to delete several redirects at WP:AFD here. I closed it since AFD doesn't discuss redirects but I thought I'd let you know in case the user violated the agreements they made about the edit warring. Redfarmer (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Redfarmer, I see you have created an entry at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion#Douchemark. This looks like the right way to do it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union
Requesting page be locked.
Article Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union has more than 3 reverts by an anonymous IP address...Posting a URL as a source to their commentary that I can not locate anywhere else nor find in published and or peer reviewed sources..
Here is the content added.
According to the Russian Orthodox Church's Patriarch Pimen, "I must say with a full sense of responsibility that there has not been a single instance of anyone having been tried or detained for his religious beliefs in the Soviet Union. Moreover, Soviet laws do not provide for punishment for "religious beliefs". Believe it or not - religion is a personal matter in the Soviet Union.
This comment appears to be posted on an unreliable and unverifiable source.
Diffs
Since this IP continues to post this comment even after it has been repeatedly removed. I request that the page be locked out from anonymous editing for a duration of time set by your discretion.
LoveMonkey (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've semiprotected for a month, since the edit warring doesn't show good intentions. I recommend posting on the talk page so newcomers to the article can understand the issue. The material being added might be germane, but puts undue weight on the single opinion of a religious official who might be assumed to be an ally of the regime he is defending. Historians evidently think differently about the existence of persecution. judging from the listed sources. This is complex enough to explain on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Xmike920
You warned Xmike920 (talk · contribs) about the possibility of a topic ban/editing restrictions after blocking him for edit-warring over time changes against consensus on the events of 9/11 last April and May. He's at it again: , , , and others, none with an explanation or source. I've warned him that sanctions are possible, without response . Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've issued an indef block due to the long-term edit warring and complete non-response to all comments from others. A topic ban would be more appropriate for someone who seemed willing to follow Misplaced Pages policy at least in some areas. In his whole career this guy has never left a talk page comment, not even on his own user talk. EdJohnston (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks: the refusal to engage and the stubborn insistence on his version of events even after explanations by other editors didn't look like they could be overcome. Acroterion (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Another sockpuppet on Pendulum
Hi. You recently handled the editwarring complaint I made against 193.233.212.18 and blocked him when he used the sockpuppet Syrmath to continue. He seems to be at it again with a new sockpuppet: Sandro78 just reverted the Pendulum article. Since 193.233.212.18 has been the only one interested in this revert, I think that's pretty good evidence Sandro78 is another sock. Thanks for your help. --Chetvorno 04:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sandro78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Yes, but Sandro78 isn't a new account. He has been around since 2005. Perhaps we should wait until he edits again? Consider leaving him a warning. Feel free to open a WP:SPI case if you are confident it is the same guy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that. Yeah, maybe he's a different editor. His edit comment sounded like 193.233.212.18's. I'll see how it goes. --Chetvorno 05:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- And here's another: . a13ean (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've opened an SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sandro78. Others are welcome to add their own information to that report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! The ANI thread was already archived and I wasn't sure where the best place for this was. a13ean (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- And here's another: . a13ean (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that. Yeah, maybe he's a different editor. His edit comment sounded like 193.233.212.18's. I'll see how it goes. --Chetvorno 05:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal
Hi Ed, I am unsure as for the template I am supposed to leave so I'll just place the diff instead: Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Jerusalem
Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits as you have participated in the discussion.--Tritomex (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I won't give my own opinion because I am acting as an admin on WP:ARBPIA matters. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
X-ray CT
Hey, I saw your note. Ah...I don't actually know who...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Got it now. I thought that the Israeli IP address tickled something in my memory, but I couldn't place it. (The last time I knowingly dealt with anything Nenpog-related was back in July when I blocked his original account for the topic ban violation.) The way he was editing today I strongly suspected he was an 'experienced' editor, but I didn't know who. If I'd recognized him up front, I wouldn't have wasted time on warnings, or let him get up to five reverts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - ANEW
Thanks for your work at ANEW and elsewhere on the project. That was my first time at ANEW, so I would welcome any feedback if my editing or reporting was problematic (other than being a little sloppy, I admit). I realize you must be incredibly busy, so if you have no comment that's fine. -- Scray (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Scray. The behavior of the troublesome editor was extremely blatant, so it wasn't a hard case to close. Regarding your own participation, try to get a report to one of the admin boards quickly before making multiple reverts yourself. Since many people were watching this article you could have stopped after your first one or two reverts and waited for others to fix it. As to the time element, it can take 12 hours or more to get an admin response at many of the boards. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. -- Scray (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Dilemma
Hello,
The RFA against me was closed. Iadrian yu was told that he shouldn't fill such a spurious RFA in the future with the promise that he is still free to request for one against me.
- I can't take it well. Iadrian yu is usually busy with requesting for blocks against me. Everyone can see that there is no too much common sense gleamed in his block requests. However, he begins groaning and mourning that there is so much disruption coming from me to Misplaced Pages that needs to stop therewith. Besides that it is a highly disruptive and contemptible behaviour, it is very dangerous as well, because not every administrator takes the trouble to investige the diffs upon which his accusations are based, and I assure you that Iadrian yu is an expert on groaning and mourning. This time his key phrase was "bad faith editing" shopping for a block, but there was another attempt of him in the past whose key phrase was "Nmate's unusual behaviour". It was also rejected ,however, once already he got a windfall after incessant mourning over my disruptive editing when I did not even think that I was in danger.
- Again, the outcome of the RFA said nothing about the fact that Iadrian yu's persistent agitations for blocks for me should be sanctioned. When I report Iadrian for block shopping, he makes statements in an effort to give administrators the impression in a way that they tend to lump me together with him, e.g. the fact that I report him for block shopping is also a block shopping.
Your opinion on the matter caused a set-back in the outcome. After that I commented on it at the talk page of admin The Blade of the Northern Lights including the fact that I think that Iadrian yu should have been blocked for this. Surprisingly, Iadrian yu too appeared there saying that "I am sorry, but isn`t this block-shopping???" He reported me in his lates RFA, yet he had the temerity to claim there that "I accuse him of various things without any solid evidence" while it was him who lodged an RFA against me. Behaving this way takes some chutzpah....................you let Iadrian yu elude a well deserved sanction under AE leaving me in the pickle of what should be done with him, because this problem won't resolve itself. I may still fall prey to Iadrian yu's harrasments, and his aggressively trollish behaviour. --Nmate (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Iadrian yu's AE complaint was frivolous, but your response to his complaint wasn't effective either. Admins become discouraged when neither side is saying anything they can understand. Better to leave it the way it is now. If you don't have to interact with him, you should leave him alone. If a dispute occurs about a particular article and you have to file a complaint with admins, explain clearly how the article benefits from your contribution, and don't focus on what he may have done to you personally. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you that my response was not effective. Iadrian yu's reports do not make too much sense to me, and I can't respond to anything that does not make sense to me. Without being able to figure out how Iadrian yu comes to such weird conclusions regarding my edits, I always begin looking askance at him when reading his reports. I usualy do not edit articles Iadrian yu edits.
- Iadrian can't nail me based on any valid evidence. Therefore, he has no other option but to press charges using the latest edits of mine with outright false misrepresentations and the diffs simply can't support what he claims they show while mourning and groaning that there is so much disruption coming from me to Misplaced Pages that needs to stop at once. What a contemptible behaviour !
- Iadrian yu requested for arbitraion against me shortly after I had requested that User: Samofi's talk page access be revoked. Just as Samofi, Iadrian yu likes editing the English Misplaced Pages alongside Hungarian users of whose favourtie subject is history, to represent the the interest of the opponent's side in writing articles , where his contributions almost always appear to be aimed at removing Hungarian-related content, or modifying content to be more anti-Hungarian.
- The reason why Iadrian yu requested for arbitration against me was that Iadrian yu thinks that the anti-Hungarian side may loose of their turf after Samofi's talk page access was revoked. I do not endorse this this type of way of thinking at all which seems to be very much like battleground behaviour at the highest degree, but that is what Iadrian yu is up to. Very disappointing.--Nmate (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Iadrian yu requested for arbitraion against me shortly after I had requested that User: Samofi's talk page access be revoked. Just as Samofi, Iadrian yu likes editing the English Misplaced Pages alongside Hungarian users of whose favourtie subject is history, to represent the the interest of the opponent's side in writing articles , where his contributions almost always appear to be aimed at removing Hungarian-related content, or modifying content to be more anti-Hungarian.
- Iadrian can't nail me based on any valid evidence. Therefore, he has no other option but to press charges using the latest edits of mine with outright false misrepresentations and the diffs simply can't support what he claims they show while mourning and groaning that there is so much disruption coming from me to Misplaced Pages that needs to stop at once. What a contemptible behaviour !
- I agree with you that my response was not effective. Iadrian yu's reports do not make too much sense to me, and I can't respond to anything that does not make sense to me. Without being able to figure out how Iadrian yu comes to such weird conclusions regarding my edits, I always begin looking askance at him when reading his reports. I usualy do not edit articles Iadrian yu edits.