| Revision as of 16:39, 17 June 2014 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,224 edits Removing notice of NYC event; thank you← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:44, 17 June 2014 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,224 edits →Antidiskriminator: Consider making an actual proposal for the title of Đurđevdan uprisingNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| ::: BTW, "fun" with regard to this topic has continued at the two of our talk pages. I hereby formally invite you to observe, if you weren't doing that already. --] (]) 13:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | ::: BTW, "fun" with regard to this topic has continued at the two of our talk pages. I hereby formally invite you to observe, if you weren't doing that already. --] (]) 13:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::] - so far nobody besides yourself has joined in the RfC at ]. My suggestion is that you make your own recommendation for a title there. Or even change it into a conventional move discussion. Regular ]s are often closed even with a small number of participants, if one side makes a reasonable proposal and the other side doesn't appear to have any evidence. ] (]) 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Dire straits == | == Dire straits == | ||
Revision as of 16:44, 17 June 2014
Antidiskriminator
In January, you consulted me regarding the topic ban on Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs). I'm afraid that there's been no actual improvement despite the second chance. The flamewars at Talk:Pavle Đurišić appear to be back, and in general there's been way too much acrimony for a situation where someone is given another chance after having been banned for inappropriately causing acrimony.
More specifically, there's been a number of largely unproductive and often unpleasant interactions with him with regard to Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Skaramuca, Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia, Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. I believe that his interpretation of the sourcing policy is largely shoddy, and that his argumentation is largely specious. I have diligently tried to address each of those sourcing issues with a focus on the content rather than the contributor, but I can't help that I notice a pattern - it's often the same editor behaving in such a specific way - writing articles based on cherry-picked quotes from Google Books searches, which are usually in various Serbian nationalist topic areas.
In response, he's approached me directly on my talk page several times now (you can also see that in the last archives, I can send you specific links to that if you need them), with various claims how I was abusing him, the combined effect of which I see as WP:DEPE, pretty much; when I told him off, his instant retort was that I was doing the same to him. *facepalm*
I thought I'll be able to tolerate this, and let him continue to occasionally vent, but the straw that broke the camel's back for me this time is the fact that I got into an unusual amount of trouble recently with fellow admins thinking I was editing while involved, where one of the contentious points was a tiny bit of Antidiskriminator's taunting at Talk:Vukovar that I had reacted to in an annoyed manner. He asked me "wasn't I involved", and I told him to not beat around the bush - if he actually thought that I was involved, he should provide a modicum of explanation why. He didn't do that, just as I expected. Yet, the point that he asked was later brought up by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs), because I could have used that opportunity to consider that issue myself, yet I just dismissed him because I knew it was his habit to make these sorts of annoying statements. I didn't stop to think how this might look to an innocent bystander, and this slip-up was one in a series that led to me being preventively blocked because JamesBWatson thought it all added up into me being actually involved.
In retrospect, my takeaway from that situation is that Ad's actions are really starting to get to me, and that if left unchecked, this is going to boil over one way or another. Since JamesBWatson criticized me for not asking for help earlier in that (unrelated) situation, and rightly so - here I am, asking for your help.
I realize how this may sound - I'm asking a ban-imposing admin to reconsider a ban on a user, while saying I don't want to drive that user away. I honestly don't care whether Antidiskriminator leaves or stays - but I do want this ridiculous downward spiral of increasingly poisonous interactions to stop.
I thought of a self-imposed interaction ban with him, but the problem is that I see that Ad's interactions are having an eerily similar effect on Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs), which is making me think that the main problem isn't really with me.
I suppose it's also possible that two unrelated people from different continents are just being subtle jerks towards Ad, but I don't think that's likely in this case because Pm67 is a user who actually seems to have a sound understanding of the policies and has made a substantially positive contribution.)
Sorry for the wall of text, but this just isn't a trivial thing to explain :/ Thanks. --Joy (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm just commenting here because Joy pinged me above and I've just been through yet another obtuse discussion with Antidiskriminator. I am no saint, and the constant carping gets right up my nose, but he just went back to the same thing with the Đurišić article as soon as the ban was lifted (which frankly was always what was going to happen), and it hasn't let up. I believe I understand WP policies reasonably well, particularly WP:RS, and Antidiskriminator just doesn't appear to, or just ignores them, or cherry-picks phrases out of context in an attempt to get around them. I could give dozens of examples, and I am also being harassed on my talk page almost daily about my supposedly "harsh" comments, but have been trying to avoid taking the bait. It isn't ok to have this level of disruption on an article or harassment of an editor through an article. For every valid point he might make, there are twenty that just aren't valid. There must be a case for re-imposition of the ban, which really was lifted without any proper argumentation even by Antidiskriminator himself, let alone anyone that has to deal with the consequences. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Joy: Few admins are willing to spend time in this topic area and I appreciate your work. Before considering a conduct complaint, I'd suggest going forward with an WP:RM discussion at Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. If User:Antidiskriminator responds by going in circles and not listening to others, that could provide evidence for a future complaint. His previous topic ban was due to a perception that discussions involving him would never reach a conclusion, which led to a judgment of bad faith participation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Because I myself don't really know the best move destination, instead of an RM I started an RFC. It should appear both in that notification system and in five article alerts, so hopefully other people notice. Let's see. --Joy (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, "fun" with regard to this topic has continued at the two of our talk pages. I hereby formally invite you to observe, if you weren't doing that already. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- User:Joy - so far nobody besides yourself has joined in the RfC at Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. My suggestion is that you make your own recommendation for a title there. Or even change it into a conventional move discussion. Regular WP:RMs are often closed even with a small number of participants, if one side makes a reasonable proposal and the other side doesn't appear to have any evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, "fun" with regard to this topic has continued at the two of our talk pages. I hereby formally invite you to observe, if you weren't doing that already. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Dire straits
Hello - thanks for closing the discussion, but I think you misread the consensus. I think the consensus was to keep the redirect as it was - to Dire Straits. Most people agreed that that would be acceptable, especially after the dab page was created. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but would you mind taking another look? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Since User:BDD is the author of the new DAB page at Dire Straits (disambiguation), and I thought he was voting for that to be the target of the redirect I've asked him to clarify his opinion. Since he may be on vacation this could take some time. The most obvious interpretation of the slightly ambiguous votes was that either two or three people favored this solution. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I boldly undid the redirection, but was promptly reverted. In my opinion, this should be reopened due to a misreading of the consensus; reverting the closure myself is very tempting but I want a second opinion on it first.--Launchballer 19:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Septate/removal of images of Muhammad from Islam
Hi, in April you blocked User:Septate for 48 hours for edit-warring with deceptive edit summaries to remove a particular image of Muhammad from the Islam article, in response to my 3RR report here. Today, he removed it again here. Someone else gave him a 3RR warning in response. What's the correct process at this point and can action be taken because of this one further removal? To be honest I've given up on AGF for this user and he seems to be waiting for "the dust to settle" so no one will notice (as he thinks) to try it again. DeCausa (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
AmirSurfLera note
When I repaired the operation defensive shield article in the aftermath, I noticed that anytime you edit that article (and presumably any other israel palestine article) there's a notice that the article has a 1RR restriction, so there's no way he couldn't have known about the 1RR restriction having edited the article twice.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I will be unhappy to see any more reverts of this article without a talk page consensus. Left a message for the other editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I addressed Sean.hoyland's concern, and sought talk page discussion on the reverts, leaving the article roughly as it was before this editing cycle started. I did adjust one of the sentences in the second paragraph that I don't think is under contention. It is getting a little frustrating because the edit he keeps inserting seems to be mostly unsupported by the sources, in fact, contradicted by some of the sources he himself is offering.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's good that you are discussing at Talk:Operation Defensive Shield#Contradiction in Bethlehem section. Consider making a draft of your preferred version of the Bethlehem section and posting it for review on the talk page. There is a page at WP:IPCOLL where you could post if you need to get more opinions. You might also contact others who have edited the article recently to see what they think. I'm giving a ping to User:Sean.hoyland and User:AmirSurfLera since you mentioned their names above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Removing the paragraph entirely or even the entire Bethlehem section and working on it on the talk page is something that might provide a motive for finding consensus fairly quickly to restore the agreed content. Also, although it throws a spanner in the works, I've just noticed that it says see also Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem at the top of that section (...it should probably say Main article). In principal, that means WP:SYNC is relevant. In an ideal world, the Bethlehem section in the Operation Defensive Shield article would be an exact copy of the lead from the main article, Siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (with citations). That kind of cross-article consistency never happens though, but it's another option i.e. work on and update the main article including the lead and then copy the lead over to Operation Defensive Shield. Just a thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's good that you are discussing at Talk:Operation Defensive Shield#Contradiction in Bethlehem section. Consider making a draft of your preferred version of the Bethlehem section and posting it for review on the talk page. There is a page at WP:IPCOLL where you could post if you need to get more opinions. You might also contact others who have edited the article recently to see what they think. I'm giving a ping to User:Sean.hoyland and User:AmirSurfLera since you mentioned their names above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I addressed Sean.hoyland's concern, and sought talk page discussion on the reverts, leaving the article roughly as it was before this editing cycle started. I did adjust one of the sentences in the second paragraph that I don't think is under contention. It is getting a little frustrating because the edit he keeps inserting seems to be mostly unsupported by the sources, in fact, contradicted by some of the sources he himself is offering.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Alleged Pseudoscience and Fringe Science
NOTICE : "The topic of Plasma cosmology is covered by an Arbcom case".
REPLY: Plasma Cosmology is a legitimate alternative cosmological model postulated by professional physicists in accordance with accepted interactions of phyics. On these terms - it is neither Pseudoscience, nor fringe science. It is simply an alternative model.217.208.57.69 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Plasma cosmology is pseudoscience, as agreed. The page need to be semi-protected. Furthermore, this same IP User 217.208.57.69 is again 3RRR Edit warring on Plasma cosmology again after a recent 48 hour sanction. Could you please advise on further action against this disruptive user? Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Plasma cosmology is now semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello!
I noticed you mentioned me somehow to the moderators/administrators board as being a possible alias of EnlightenedOne? I can assure you I am simply a new user, though I realize this may be difficult to prove... but simply let me know if there's anything I can do differently! Thank you! Santacide (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!
I appreciate the hat-tip regarding the edits at Marco Rubio. Collect may have been in the wrong with how they were editing, but they were making a good point. --McDoobAU93 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The article coolie
I am not going to give up because the article is false and racially offensive. A mater of fact I am going to get more people to edit this article because this is what is necessary to have the truth written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Protections
Hi, thanks for protecting Ancient Macedonians, however, your protection of Talk:Gaulish language may have been a bit of an over-reaction. Only one IP edit, the latest, was a ban-evading Wikinger sock. All the previous ones are a single, apparently legitimate user. He's been making a bit of a nuisance of himself by refusing to sign his posts, and he has something of a penchant for OR arguments, but other than that I think he should still be regarded as legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- (Seeing as you won't probably be back online for the next few hours, and there is a current need for continuing the discussion with that IP editor, I've left a note about this at ANI, presuming a quick unprotection would be uncontroversial.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have lifted the semiprotection per your request. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have lifted the semiprotection per your request. EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Dave Brat article
I just wanted to point out that I understand your decision about the 3RR ruling you made about Cwobeel. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But furthermore, I just wanted to point out that there is more information that happened after your decision that I think you need to be made aware of. Cwobeel pasted the immature, "See I told you so comments below on my talk page." I think these comments indicate his attitude clearly. It indicates that he arrogant and unwilling to work with those who disagree with him. He will violate 3RR again, which he has in the past (he didn't get a pass that time) and I will report him again. Hopefully the new admin will be like the last admin and hold him accountable for his arrogant and self-righteous editing. I hope you have a good day!--NK (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hope you learned a lesson ], but if you haven't, here are some suggestions
- Next time there is a dispute, discuss in talk, not just go around making edits and reverting others.
- Before you post in the 3RR noticeboard, make sure you have concrete proof of a violation.
- Blocks are not punitive, so don't go around trying to punish your opponents in a dispute, in particular after arriving at a consensus.
- Happy editing. Cwobeel (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
RfC in Dave Brat
As someone who previously participated in the article Dave Brat, I am letting you know a RfC has been opened on an issue regarding that article. BlueSalix (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Question regarding an editor under a topic ban
User:Jaqeli nominated Pharnavaz I of Iberia for Good Article status. After I did the review, I realized that they are under a topic ban against editing articles relating to Georgia and Armenia. Does the ban extend to ancient Georgian history? I noted on their talk page and on the nomination list that the user is under a topic ban, and that once the ban is lifted they can address the issues that I brought up with the nomination. Today they edited the article in question in response to my review - is this within the scope of the ban or not? Please let me know promptly.--¿3family6 contribs 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please contact User:Sandstein who imposed the topic ban originally. He has the power to make an exemption to allow User:Jaqeli to work on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, will do.--¿3family6 contribs 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Shugden socks
Please see Bushranger's talk page. Bush seems busy in real life. These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:
- Prasangika37
- Essence37 - obvious sock.
- March22ndHeicth (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)