| Revision as of 14:26, 18 June 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 22.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:28, 19 June 2011 edit undoJiujitsuguy (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,155 edits →Militant atheismNext edit → | ||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
| ] (]) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | ] (]) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ==Question== | |||
| Hi Ed. I've always respected you as an admin. However, I'm a bit puzzled (actually troubled) as to you pose to Nableezy. Are you asking Nableezy, one of the most adversarial editors in the I-A topic area, blocked and banned on numerous occasions, advice on how to proceed? Best--] (]) 04:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:28, 19 June 2011
FYA
Hi, I just noted you are cordially guiding Angel670 on their talkpage. I'd like to bring to your attention this edit, where he/she reverted my note and tagged it as "stop vandalising my talkpage" (clear personal attack). If you think this is not a CIVIL way of communication, you might consider guiding him/her on the matter. Best regards. -- Ashot 09:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was not happy to see that edit summary. Since you're here, and you are interested in a few of the same issues as Angel670, I invite you to propose how we could resolve the sourcing issues for the massacre articles. My concern is that the facts about the 1992 massacres are so poorly known due to the lack of nonpartisan witnesses, e.g. the Western press, so we depend on survivor testimony. In practice, each side goes on repeating the version of events that it chooses to believe. When we see a new account of the massacres published somewhere, we may not be confident that there is any real information behind it. Perhaps better sources are out there somewhere. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have some vision of how that article can be improved in an appropriate manner.
- There really may be good sources we are not aware of (I am personally in search), but since in Misplaced Pages we can rely only on trustworthy neutral sources, we don't have a real alternative to scarce Western ones. So what we can do is (1) sum up all the Western sources we have; (2) RfC on those for which there is no consensus.
- Now the major problem I foresee is partisanship (like this one), and here probably some formal or informal mediation might be useful (and hence your support would be more than appreciated). -- Ashot 14:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I find it startling and perhaps worrisome that Angel670 wants a 'tit-for-tat' approach to sourcing. One source from your side, therefore one from our side to compensate. (That's what the above diff suggests). It may be possible to have an open discussion somewhere to agree on a list of sources. It should be done in a way that is compliant with Misplaced Pages policy. If you want to take the initiative to set up this discussion, I am sure that admins will be available to help. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Angel670, the user who brought the past AE complaint, has started an RfC about one of the massacres, in which sources will be discussed. (See User talk:Angel670#WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan and look at the bottom of the thread). The RfC has been opened with this diff and can be seen at Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre#Request for Comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that RFC statement is yet another misconduct edit by Angel670. He/she knows very well (at least from preceding discussions) that only 2 of the mentioned sources call the event massacre. Furthermore, he/she was not kind enough to provide us all with scanned version of the German source for further clarifications.
- I will refrain from commenting there as I agree with Marshal's statement and want to avoid partisanship in that RfC (let uninvolved editors have their input there and I'll join only when I find my input important). I also noticed you asked Golbez for a comment. Perhaps he is the most knowledgeable admin in the area and I only can thank you for that request.
- And another thing I'd like to say is that I wish you patience. Armenia-Azerbaijan related discussions may sometimes grow into tiresome circles and I know admins who simply get tired of everything (see, e.g. here). I hope you will pursue this discussion to achieve an appropriate point. Thanks in advance. -- Ashot 05:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I wish there was some way to word the RfC in a more effective way. Since I'm trying to act as an admin, there should be a limit on the amount of intervention I do in the RfC proper. I hope other content editors will suggest rewording of #1, which suggests lack of familiarity with the WP:RS policy. (Sources should not get disqualified due to their city of publication, but they don't get qualified that way either). My guess is that there must have been some past discussions of the best sources for the Karabakh war. With patience, somebody could go through archives and locate these. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Angel670, the user who brought the past AE complaint, has started an RfC about one of the massacres, in which sources will be discussed. (See User talk:Angel670#WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan and look at the bottom of the thread). The RfC has been opened with this diff and can be seen at Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre#Request for Comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I find it startling and perhaps worrisome that Angel670 wants a 'tit-for-tat' approach to sourcing. One source from your side, therefore one from our side to compensate. (That's what the above diff suggests). It may be possible to have an open discussion somewhere to agree on a list of sources. It should be done in a way that is compliant with Misplaced Pages policy. If you want to take the initiative to set up this discussion, I am sure that admins will be available to help. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, I think that the boring text of the RfC is not going to attract others to get involved. I don't think Angel is the editor who is capable of cooperating to improve the RfC (see, e.g. his response to your suggestion on his talkpage). What is the proper way out? -- Ashot 17:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that the RfC is stalled. But since we're all volunteers, we can't make people work on stuff unless they want to work on it. I think one or more people would need to do some library work to get the ball rolling. Any ideas? Do you think this article could truly be improved, or is your main concern that you don't want others to start slanting the content? EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have searched all possible scholar databases (English) and found nothing more (all my findings are in the discussion page). I am very suspicious that it is at all possible to find any more English sources. For non-English sources I can't be of help...
- Regarding the RfCs. I'd prefer having a short RfC which simply asks whether the events can be called massacre based on the sources we have on hand. To make it even more simple, we can consequently RfC on concrete sources, namely "Caucasus and an unholy alliance" and "Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt" asking whether they can be considered reliable and competent enough to call the events massacre based on them.
- I wonder if you have any suggestions of your own... -- Ashot 04:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you please share your thoughts regarding this proposal. Thanks. -- Ashot 05:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your effort on this topic seems worthwhile. It will take me a few days to get back to this, since I'm busy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Editnotice creation request
Hi Ed. Would you have time to create the usual I/P editnotice page for the Hamas Covenant article, please? I added the ARBPIA template to the talk page some time ago, but forgot to ask an admin to create the corresponding edit notice. Many thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ed. I didn't say so earlier because I know some people dislike what I've heard described as "the orange bar of death", and I know your talk sees a lot of activity. But may I ask for one more, the same edit-notice for Palestinian cause, please? I'll be grateful, even if I don't explicity say so. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I created the edit notice, but I don't think they are always needed. There are 700-1000 articles tagged for ARBPIA, but fewer than 300 of them have edit notices. I think the edit notices are appropriate at hot-button articles such as Golan Heights, but they are not required everywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ed. I didn't say so earlier because I know some people dislike what I've heard described as "the orange bar of death", and I know your talk sees a lot of activity. But may I ask for one more, the same edit-notice for Palestinian cause, please? I'll be grateful, even if I don't explicity say so. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I was unaware. Thanks for letting me know. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas
Ed, since V. saw fit to remove my comment at his page, here it is:
- Ed, I disagree that V. has been trying for a negotiated result. You can read part of my side of the story here. Viriditas has been something of a loose cannon at this page -- in my opinion, of course, but he has drawn many complaints from other editors for his behavior at that page -- which I'd be happy to document if you like. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing prevents you from setting up a WP:Request for comment at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. If people are cooperating poorly, setting a good example for the others sometimes works. Certainly the creation of an RfC would be viewed favorably by any admin who was thinking of sanctioning people for edit warring on that article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good idea, Ed, and I actually have a draft of one started. I just find that sort of thing intensely distasteful -- but the process is broken at that page now, so best hold my nose and Just Do It, I suppose. Thanks for the advice -- sad situation.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- You may be interested in the upshot of Viriditas's 1RR complaint, which I just discovered and posted at AN/I: my post at Tillman (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2011. Your reaction would be appreciated. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Unblock requests from Hard4me
I am considering an unblock request at User talk:Hard4me. You declined an earlier unblock request from the same editor, and you referred to "Socking". If the user has been socking then very probably the request should be declined, but I haven't seen anything else about that, so can you clarify? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-free files in your user space
Hey there EdJohnston, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:EdJohnston/Dobzhansky draft. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
- See a log of files removed today here.
- Shut off the bot here.
- Report errors here.
Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Bizovne
Hello EdJohnston,
It seemms to me that your advice with respect to what should be called WP:MINOR, has not been taken, which is hardly surprising; given that Bizovne is patently unfamiliar with the English language ,because of which there is no possibility of interacting with him. Two days ago, I got a very odd message from the user, which was a copypaste text made by User:Wladthemlat, originally, on various article talk pages .
- In my opinion, it is very problematic that he does nothing else on Misplaced Pages than reverts all the active Hungarian users, very often not being logged in . And in addition, he follows the directions of the banned Iaaasi; yesterday Bizone initiated a checkuser request at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 on which page, the most active participant is Iaaasi and his sockpuppets
I filled an ArbCom Enforcement request concerning Bizovne in which you told that that "I suggest that we might as well close this report without further action. If the behavior resumes, it can be handled with an indef block by any admin. The special powers of AE aren't needed."
I was wondering when this behavior could be amount to an indef block. It is true that there is an ongoing checkuser concerning him, but last time he was found culprit in making a sockpuppet while his master account was blocked for a month for harrasment, only his Ip-sock was punished for that ,but his master-account wasn't.--Nmate (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here are the userlinks for Bizovne:
- Bizovne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- A block might be considered, but it requires some thought. Maybe a thread at ANI should be opened. I'll be busy for a while, but may get back to this in a few days. The original problem is that he was making ridiculously pro-Slovak edits. He was then blocked for a month for harassment. Somebody should carefully look at his edits since the block was lifted to see if they are still tendentious, or if he is still harassing people. It is possible that an indef block would be justified if the data was carefully examined. If you think you have convincing evidence of socking since his block was lifted, open a new SPI. I do not think a short block would be of much use, so we should try to see if an indef is justified. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I commenced a checkuser investigation against a sockpuppet of Iaaasi, commented on the ongoing checkuser investigation related to Bizovne, and expressed my opinion about the case at User_talk:DeltaQuad#Bizovne.2C_Iaaasi as DeltaQuad conducts the checkuser investigation related to this case. The mills of God grind slowly.... while that is also perfectly understandable that if you want to assign a desultory indef block to nobody. The problem is that Bizovne is not a sockpuppet of Iaaasi, but a meatpuppet of him and that is more complicated to corroborate with a checkuser. Recently, there has been archived an issue about Bizove at WP ANI to which nobody showed any interest to participate therein. And if there was a launched indef-block proposal related to Bizovne at WP ANI shortly afterwards, that would not look good....--Nmate (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Nmate does not like Slovak editors (just look at his blocking history and his activity on Misplaced Pages). I don't know lassi and Nmate's allegations are ridiculous. Best regards :) --Bizovne (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I commenced a checkuser investigation against a sockpuppet of Iaaasi, commented on the ongoing checkuser investigation related to Bizovne, and expressed my opinion about the case at User_talk:DeltaQuad#Bizovne.2C_Iaaasi as DeltaQuad conducts the checkuser investigation related to this case. The mills of God grind slowly.... while that is also perfectly understandable that if you want to assign a desultory indef block to nobody. The problem is that Bizovne is not a sockpuppet of Iaaasi, but a meatpuppet of him and that is more complicated to corroborate with a checkuser. Recently, there has been archived an issue about Bizove at WP ANI to which nobody showed any interest to participate therein. And if there was a launched indef-block proposal related to Bizovne at WP ANI shortly afterwards, that would not look good....--Nmate (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
North America
I need your mediation. A single user added a citation needed tag to a text I wrote. After looking for sources I finally added a book and now he's making up excuses to remove the text. This is a direct cite from a book. He just won't care (since he doesn't want the text added) and keep removing it.
As full disclosure, he has taken a personal stand on me after I wouldn't let him add boosterism statements about brazilian cities. This might seem irrelevant but still needed to know because he never listens to what I write in his talk page, which is highly uncivil.
This is not a negociation site, this is a direct cite from a book. AlexCovarrubias 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is the text I added because it is a direct quote from a book:
- The North American economy is well defined into three main economic areas, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), and the Central American Common Market (CACM).
- {{cite book|last=De la Torre|first=Miguel|title=Sociología y Profesión|year=2008|publisher=Nuevo León Autonomous University (UANL)|location=Monterrey|isbn=9702400511|coauthors=Benigno Benavides, José Saldaña, Jesús Fernández|page=116|chapter=Las profesiones en México: condiciones económicas, culturales y sociales|quote=La economía de América del Norte se encuentra bien definida y estructurada en tres principales áreas económicas: el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), el CARICOM y el Mercado Común Centroamericano}}
- He's ignoring the source and reverting or rewording it. The continent has three main economic areas and the idea is clearly sustained by the following text in terms of economic integration, trade amount (Can, US and Mex are eachother largest economic partners). AlexCovarrubias 23:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please open a discussion at Talk:North America as to whether this material belongs in the article. Set up a WP:Request for comment if necessary. Your claim in the edit summary to be reverting vandalism is not correct. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, with all due respect but can't you see what's going on here? He added a citation needed, then I added the citation and now he just keep reverting. This is clearly disruptive and a POV fork. As I already said, the citation is a direct quote from a book. It talks about the economical integration of North America so it clearly belongs to the artice. Why a single user can trick the system? AlexCovarrubias 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute. You need consensus of other editors that your material is relevant and worthy of inclusion. Try to start a discussion involving more than just the two of you. I am having a bit of trouble even understanding what you disagree about. Explaining the matter on the talk page would be the first step. Is the only available source one written in Spanish? EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, with all due respect but can't you see what's going on here? He added a citation needed, then I added the citation and now he just keep reverting. This is clearly disruptive and a POV fork. As I already said, the citation is a direct quote from a book. It talks about the economical integration of North America so it clearly belongs to the artice. Why a single user can trick the system? AlexCovarrubias 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please open a discussion at Talk:North America as to whether this material belongs in the article. Set up a WP:Request for comment if necessary. Your claim in the edit summary to be reverting vandalism is not correct. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Enabled email for AWB
I have now enabled email, per your request--Jeff (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I have enabled AWB for your account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive user is back
Hello, EdJohnston! Back in April you warned User:DeusExa (talk) that if they did not stop their disruptive editing, they would be blocked. The problem was their repeated, unexplained removal of a sentence from Stanford University. The sentence states that many alumni have founded high-tech companies. The sentence is sourced, and there was a strong consensus to keep it. DeusExa removed that sentence three times during April. Also during April, the sentence was removed by ISPs 169.229.82.172 (twice) and by 136.152.209.246. (All three of these IDs were reportedly traced to UC-Berkeley, so this might involve some kind of misguided university rivalry. User:DeusExa has actually added to the University of California-Berkeley article a sentence on the exact same subject, namely alumni who have founded high-tech companies. )
DeusExa was reported for edit-warring and they ignored repeated requests to explain their behavior or to answer the charges. As a result of that investigation, on April 27 you warned the user and placed a month's semiprotection on the Stanford page.
Protection expired May 27. On June 10, DeusExa deleted the same sentence again. After it was restored, it was deleted again on June 11 by ISP 71.92.195.143.
I don't know how to proceed here but it seems to me there is a case to be made for both edit-warring and sockpuppetry. Can you look into this, or what needs to be the next step?
Thanks for any help! --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the semiprotection. That should take care of the ISPs. If DeusExa continues to be a problem I will let you know. --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Stalking behaviour
I consider Fut Perf to be your responsibility because you have backed them before, and raised the issue to me "out of the blue" a couple of times, despite my assuming good faith (albeit misguided on your part and mine). Fut Perf has started to stalk me again at Antisemitism. Since this subject is not part of Fut Perf's usual stomping ground and the first time I have ever edited "Antisemitism" (this morning). I would like you to start showing me some good faith. Fut Perf gamed the system and set me up for what you continue to criticise me for. It's high-time Fut Perf answered for their crimes. Nipsonanomhmata 10:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Harassment
I need your help regarding user 08OceanBeachSD attitude. I strongly believe (as suggested by what I've experienced) he is harassing me. He arrives to every single article I edit and undo or modifies whatever I write (meaning he's watching me). This just started when I stopped his boosterism practices of Brazilian cities in several articles. So I guess he took it personal and started editing every single article I've been interested for years, very suspiciously taking the exact opposed POV even if it is not a correct POV. He just does that to bother. I already directly complained about this to him, but as expected he denied everything . I just told him that time would tell if he's harassing or it was just "a coincidence" as he labeled it.
Today I found yet another evidence of harassment. I did this edit on June 9 , deleting a second picture in subsections that only merit one. Today he did this adding it back. It's been the same in article North America, check article history.
He's been rude, uncivil, harrasing and never ever listen to the arguments I give. He just ignores it. This is not important for my case but I've been contacted by other users that suspect he's a former blocked user that edits and adds the same info in articles related to LA, San Diego and Tijuana. It is suspicious how he started using that account, seems to be very well aware of how Misplaced Pages works based on his first edits. I need guidence about what steps to take because he won't listen and will continue his hostile attitude. AlexCovarrubias 21:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Militant atheism
Hello Ed could you look over my comments on the militant atheism article talkpage and confirm if I have over stepped the bounds of the discussion. It appears that everyone but atheists have to acknowledge their fanatics and when I post when a militant atheist posts an endorsement of hate and violence on the article talkpage now I am being threatened with ANI and my comments are being hidden and or censored. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I urge you to edit calmly on that page. Some people are ascribing personal attacks to you. If this issue goes to ANI, it will probably turn into a big mess. Try to avoid that if you can. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Understood, just know I am totally against hate mongering bigotry and completely against the type that is historically atrributed to having gotten millions of people killed. I feel that pro-atheists editors are being given way too much of a pass to edit war on this, they are edit warring against other edits even today, calling their contributions vandalism which is not good faith and a personal attack on ones contributions intregraty. I have not edited on the article directly in awhile and of course will follow what you say. If you feel I am out of line I will remove myself from the article. As always be WP:BOLD. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- This article perhaps should not exist because it is hard to think of any NPOV way of treating something called 'militant atheism.' Militant is a disparaging word in many situations. If consensus won't permit the article to be deleted, then anyone such as yourself who wants to contribute there should behave as though they are walking on eggshells, because the talk page is likely to be an unpleasant place. If you are hoping to make changes that will be generally accepted and supported, choosing a different article would be wise. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hi Ed. I've always respected you as an admin. However, I'm a bit puzzled (actually troubled) as to this question you pose to Nableezy. Are you asking Nableezy, one of the most adversarial editors in the I-A topic area, blocked and banned on numerous occasions, advice on how to proceed? Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- ^ De la Torre, Miguel (2008). "Las profesiones en México: condiciones económicas, culturales y sociales". Sociología y Profesión. Monterrey: Nuevo León Autonomous University (UANL). p. 116. ISBN 9702400511.
La economía de América del Norte se encuentra bien definida y estructurada en tres principales áreas económicas: el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), el CARICOM y el Mercado Común Centroamericano
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)