Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EtienneDolet (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 27 February 2016 (not if they're personal attacks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

WP:AE#Jaqeli

• Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jaqeli. Jaqeli has not edited since 24 January, so it's unlikely they will respond to the complaint. Also I notice that you have made only one post to his talk page in the last six months. This may suggest that the possibiities of normal discussion have not been exhausted. Shall I just close this for now? Then if you see that Jaqeli starts to edit again, you can let me know and we can decide what to do then. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Hi EdJohnston. I replied to the issue you've raised. I'd also like to suggest, if possible, to have other admins look into this as well. As far as I can see, there's plenty of evidence that shows problems in user conduct, and we shouldn't be dismissing this case as a mere issue of content. So I think we need to weigh some options here. Don't get me wrong, I've always respected your opinions at AE, and I still do. But in this circumstance, I think more opinions would be more helpful. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's an issue of editor behavior, but Jaqeli has edited very sparsely. And you don't seem to have engaged him in discussion about the items you are citing in the AE complaint. For example, you don't like him making Georgia be a 'medieval great power'. But have you ever posted your objection to that anywhere? EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston The underlining premise to my report was to insinuate the notion that Jaqeli was continuing the same pattern of disruption that got him topic-banned too many times before. I noticed that this was the case after I had to revert his edit at Tumanishvili. Eventually, however, I examined his edits and suggested conclusively, on the AE board, that it was similarly disruptive in one way or another. Apparently, he learned lessons from his "past mistakes" in his last appeal, but that seems to be all but neglected. So if we all agree that it's an issue of editor behavior, why can't we proceed it as such? At the end of the day, the issue should not be viewed as an EtienneDolet vs. Jaqeli issue, but a Jaqeli vs. AA2 issue. I know this may be hard to conceive since most filers at AE have a personal grievance with those they file an AE report against, but this is not the case at this specific circumstance. In any case, I find it quite concerning to let go of a user you were willing to ban indefinitely simply because I personally wasn't there to remind him how he should or should not edit. The point is that Jaqeli is perfectly aware, even more than me, that these types of edits in the AA2 topic area are under arbitration and can lead to sanctioning. I do not think I should even be there to familiarize himself of this. The very fact that he has received so many warnings, blocks, and bans should be suffice in that regard. Étienne Dolet (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston Thank you for taking the time and handling the situation. I don't feel that I fully understand the closure remark here. So I want to reraise the same question Tiptoethrutheminefield had at the AE report: Does this mean he is allowed to edit Georgian specific articles? If that's the case, then he'd also be allowed to edit Armenian specific articles. This may be concerning considering the disruption he has caused in relation to them. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's see what happens when he resumes editing. The diffs in your report seemed to be cases where both Georgia and Armenia were mentioned in the same article. Nobody seems to mind his work on Georgian-specific articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Emin Huseynov

Hello, I have slighly cropped the pic, balanced background and softened a little the entire photo. Criticism and suggestions are welcome.--Carnby (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Carnby. The pic looks better now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Mitanni

Hello, some Misplaced Pages user who appears to be Georgian, removed the Indo-European template from the Mitanni article. This users edit history is full of Anti-Armenian propaganda. Please restore the template in Mitanni, thanks. 166.176.56.197 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Armenian church near Kharpert used as public toilet after the genocide

The Armenian Evangelical Church, Elâzığ, also interesting for @Yerevantsi:. Do you have a photograph?--Hayodzazgi (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

And this one was turned into a cinema for pornography.--Hayodzazgi (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is just propaganda, a fake story, probably invented by those involved in the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation "industry" because they have cast their avaricious eyes onto this monument and realized they can make money out of it, and want to speed things along. Similar fake stories were spread about Aghtamar, and about Ani, to encourage the initiation of projects that did nothing to preserve the monuments but which were financially lucrative for those involved. The Elazig church is probably the last visual reminder of the AG that survives in the middle of any major Turkish city - but its integrity as an historical monument will be destroyed if those TAR parasites get their hands on it. At the moment it is a raw, dramatic and very evocative empty roofless shell, in the middle of a large open space that is used as a car park and which is the last bit of open space in the middle of Elazig. It exists like a rip in the visual fabric of a modern densely-packed city, allowing a glimpse of the past. So it is not surprising that those involved in the fake reconciliation industry want it sanitized by "restoration". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Spam on Putin talk page

I have deleted three more of the "election" sections on the talk page. I hope I can count on your support for this. And if there are more going to appear, perhaps take your turn in removing them. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, I agree there's a lot of spam on the TP. But there's always going to be someone that's going to revert you upon removing them. Unfortunately, the edit-warring is not only on the main space anymore, but has now commenced at the talk page as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

3RR on VP

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vladimir Putin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

3 reverts in just a couple of hours. Yes I know not technically a 3RR violation. But hey! Didn't you recently report someone for similar? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply

No, there was no "tag teaming". You could easily single out a lot of other editors, X and Y, who are active in the same subject area for years and happened to agree on something. Yes, I occasionally check edits made by many contributors, including VM. It does not mean I "wikistalk" them or "tag team" with them. I frequently disagree with them (can provide diffs), and if I make an edit, this is my edit. I know the subject, checked the sources, and think this is good edit. No one recently complained. My very best wishes (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There's probably 1000s of users who share the same interests with me, but I don't engage in tag-team edit-warring with them. That's not helpful for the encyclopedia. For example, when you make a WP:NINJA-style revert, as you did at Putin, you are not helping to resolve the issue through appropriate consensus building measures. Instead, you're fanning the flames and making it appear that the issue can be only solved through edit-warring, which should never be the case. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And now it appears that you have reverted me again. That's a big no-no. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

You and User:My very best wishes seem to be in a dispute. He made this recent edit, which you reverted. While this material about cluster bombs is well-sourced, it is up to editor consensus whether it belongs in Putin's own article. Have you discussed this on the talk page? I am considering if the article should be under a WP:1RR restriction or full protection. Another option is to issue page bans to anyone who reverts a lot and doesn't seem to be actively seeking consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston,

The problems concerning this article are not limited to Vladimir Putin. There's some concerning tag-team edit-warring going which is not only hampering the consensus building process of this article, but of many other articles. Therefore, I don't think this particular article should go into 1RR because of that, rather a full protection may be more appropriate. Yes, I have participated in the discussion at the talk page (see: section here). There appears to be at least 5 users that are against its inclusion, and just Mvbw and VM in favor of it. However, the tag-team edit-warring has been effective for them. But Misplaced Pages is not about who wins the "edit-war" battle, rather it should be an environment of consensus building and good faith editing. Thank you for taking the time looking into this matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It is against the wikirules to delete or tamper with someone's else's comments.--Galassi (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not if they're personal attacks buddy. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)