| Revision as of 21:36, 24 September 2013 editElvey (talk | contribs)9,497 edits →Edit warring noticeboard Q← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:05, 24 September 2013 edit undo198.189.184.243 (talk) →I am about to request arbitration: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
| <blockquote>02:15, 3 September 2013 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) protected User talk:L'Origine du monde (expires 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)) (expires 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)) (Talk page has been disabled. Make any further appeals by email) (hist)</blockquote> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | <blockquote>02:15, 3 September 2013 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) protected User talk:L'Origine du monde (expires 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)) (expires 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)) (Talk page has been disabled. Make any further appeals by email) (hist)</blockquote> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| :Since you are no longer blocked, you should feel free to remove any of these messages relating to the block. Another option is to archive them. ] (]) 02:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC) | :Since you are no longer blocked, you should feel free to remove any of these messages relating to the block. Another option is to archive them. ] (]) 02:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == I am about to request arbitration == | |||
| Within the next 5 minutes, I will request an arbitration appeal.] (]) 23:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:05, 24 September 2013
Scope of topic ban
Ed, there's been some confusion in the past about the scope of an ARBPIA sanctions (and battleground editors have used this confusion to wikilawyer for additional bans), so I just want to clarify it ahead of time so I don't make any mistakes. By my understanding of WP:ARBPIA, a topic ban applies to "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it does not prevent the TBAN'd editor from editing in articles which simply mention Israel or Palestine in passing (outside of the context of the conflict), for generic biographical details, etc. I really have no desire to edit conflict-related articles at this time and I'm not attempting to skirt any lines, or game the ban, I just don't want to inadvertently find myself back at AE. Thanks in advance. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion an ARBPIA topic ban only covers editing related to the I/P conflict unless whoever imposed the ban has modified the language. In this case it is a standard topic ban as decribed in WP:TBAN. So a banned editor could still add text to Tel Aviv if the edit does not change anything related to the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
ThePromenader's harassment
I'm frankly sick and tired of User:ThePromenader's harassment. I hadn't made any comment in the Paris aire urbaine talk page these past days because I thought all that I could possibly say was already said, and ThePromenader was monopolizing that talk page by repeatedly posting reams of the same comments day after day. Then last night, in answer to a comment posted by one editor, I left one comment: here. Guess what, only 7 hours later, ThePromenader made some new accusations against me at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Der Statistiker. Note that he hadn't made any comment in that investigation since September 7, and suddenly, what a coincidence, he made some new accusations only 7 hours after I dared to interrupt his monologue in the Paris aire urbaine talk page. Isn't that some form of harassment? At any rate it's the most uncivil behavior I've been confronted to on Misplaced Pages. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- ThePromenader has deleted large swaths of the Paris Metropolitan Area article without consulting with anyone: . It's very hard to contribute to the Paris-related articles if this guy engages in such behavior without even opening discussions on the talk pages before making such drastic edits. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Here's my reply to the same complaint campaign left elsewhere. This is 'flashback city' for me - sorry you were dragged into this. THEPROMENADER 21:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Enrolled in Molecular Biology course?
Are you really a student of Education_Program:Johns_Hopkins_University/Molecular_Biology,_Section_81_(FA13), or did you enroll to test out functionality or some similar reason? If you're not a student, could you un-enroll yourself? Thanks! Klortho (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I must have clicked the wrong button. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Editing restrictions
I see that LoveMonkey has been indefinitely barred. There is no longer any point in listing his editing restriction. I wonder if my mirror editing restriction can or even should be removed together with it. The change would take effect only after I have served whatever sentence is passed on me. I would also undertake not to touch for, say, at least three months that "heaven and hell" section that the quarrel was about: I think it would be inappropriate for me to edit it in any way so soon after LoveMonkey's departure. Esoglou (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- There's been a discussion at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing behavior of User:Esoglou. It's possible that User:LoveMonkey's block will be temporary. Better wait and see if he will file an unblock request. The EO/Catholic bans may not have been clearly understood by the other editors at ANI, since these matters are esoteric. You are perhaps not the best person to decide whether some EO theologians are anti-Catholic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have doubtless suggested that a certain Misplaced Pages editor was anti-Catholic, and it is clear that I was not the only person to judge so, but I don't think I have been judging EO theologians anti-Catholic. I have only indicated that certain statements cherry-picked by the editor called for balancing statements of what is really Catholic teaching on those matters. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:GAMING
Is it considered gaming the system if User:Sopher99 makes a second revert 45 minutes after the 1RR deadline?
He twice removed mention of sectarianism. The main reason i'm concerned is because i thought we reached a compromise here agreeing to show both "shia" and "sunni". However, he made the revert anyway despite the compromise. Pass a Method talk 16:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- The second edit you listed is not a revert. He is just adding a hidden comment. It is not clear why these edits violate the compromise anyway. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment. I'm finding this discussion hard to follow, and an RfC would require that someone articulate the point in dispute clearly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me point out the elephant in the room though. Pass a Method just broke the 1 revert rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&action=history
Revert 1 at 10:31
Revert 2 at 17:17
Sopher99 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't know what to do
User:ThePromenader's behavior is getting out of hand at Paris Metropolitan Area, as I feared, and no admin is intervening despite the fact that I have contacted you and another admin. Now he insists on placing a "verify source" tag next to a reference I've added after he complained that there were no references, and he's placing that "verify source" tag despite the fact that the reference comes from a statistical publication of the national statistical office of France, INSEE. See his edit here: . What can be done if even a source coming from the national statistical office of France itself won't do for him? It seems he's determined to challenge just about every sentence or figure I add in Misplaced Pages. Is there a place on Misplaced Pages where I could report this? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- More disingenuousity. He's reverted to material that has no sources at all (still without providing sources), is attempting to pass a single demonstrative study by a single authour as 'data', and is reverting even the 'verify source' tags without discussing the issue. If you would like to have a discussion about me, come directly to my talk page. That goes for you too, User:Der Statistiker, and everyone else you've complained to. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring noticeboard Q
Hi, Ed.
Commenting on the note you left on my talk page: Elvey reported me for edit warring, but I was not doing any Misplaced Pages work over the weekend (family time) and did not follow up, and its been bot-archived after 48 hours; it's now in the archives here . I think it's worth responding to, but I don't know the protocol for that. Can you advise? TJRC (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is about an archived 3RR report. It seems that you, User:Elvey and User:Prosfilaes all have some knowledge of this topic. Generally you and Prosfilaes are in agreement but Elvey is on the other side. I suggest following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Even if you don't have the patience to open up a formal WP:RFC, you could at least state your preference on the talk page and ask others to comment. When an outsider like myself looks at the page, it is unclear what the dispute is about. This could make it more difficult to recruit people new to the problem to offer their opinion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I regret getting involved at all and probably would have left it alone altogether had Elvey not repeatedly posted to my talk page complaining about my (single) edit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed. I'm about to leave for vacation in a few days, and don't think we'd get any resolution before leaving, so I'll open something there when I get back. There's not a lot of point in editing the article in the meantime, so I am with some reluctance leaving Elvey's version there (I just self-reverted), and will keep away from this article for the next couple of weeks. TJRC (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ed,
- (I replied to your recent comment on my talk page; please reply.) Above, you said "When an outsider like myself looks at the page, it is unclear what the dispute is about." I think there's now a clearer summary of the overall dispute here but I'd like to know if you have any suggestions; it works for you? I could copy it over. FYI, TJRC has resorted to misquoting policy (unapologetically, as always) and so forth on his talk page. --Elvey (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk page has been disabled. Make any further appeals by email
Hi! sorry to bother you, but I get this text editing my talk page. I am happy to have my talk page protected against vandalism, but I would like to see a friendlier message, If that is possible.
02:15, 3 September 2013 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) protected User talk:L'Origine du monde (expires 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)) (expires 02:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)) (Talk page has been disabled. Make any further appeals by email) (hist)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs)
- Since you are no longer blocked, you should feel free to remove any of these messages relating to the block. Another option is to archive them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I am about to request arbitration
Within the next 5 minutes, I will request an arbitration appeal.198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)