Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:42, 4 February 2015

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

FYI

The guys are battling for a few days in several pages. Each made a 3RR violation here. But I would hate to report them to 3RRNB: they are good contributors. Maybe some kind of a warning? My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see an actual 3RR there, and the two guys are discussing this quite a bit, mostly on user talk. Each of them is already notified under WP:ARBEE in case of further trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. I also noticed a discussion between two other users on your talk page. You gave them notices and protected the article in dispute. It seems that one of them just resumed edit warring on this page, immediately after expiration of your protection , without having consensus on this article talk page. Given my previous history, I will not participate in these disputes any longer. Just letting you know as an admin who protected this article... My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to help, you could start a new section on the talk page at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany. Try to summarize the issues in dispute and give the current status, if you can. At present no admin would understand the issues without reading 10,000 words of discussion, which they are unlikely to do. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The dispute I had with the other user was settled and I added some text back since it was agreed that it was not coat racking.

The user above wants all text sourced to Russian historians removed. I told him to start a new discussion about this and prove his point. I don't understand why he came here. -YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the user above recently reverted without consensus a large piece of text from the article, which others have spent time discussing and editing in the last few days.
Oddly, above he claimed that he "will not participate in these disputes any longer." I don't know what to say... -YMB29 (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@EDJohnston. I realize that the thread is very long, but one should really read it from the very beginning to understand what is happening: a prolonged WP:TE dispute between YMB29 on one "side" and all other users on the other "side". Same in the edit history of this page ,,,, (reverting edits by five other different contributors). Same on other pages ,, (countless reverts like that ,). But whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What do those diffs supposed to prove? Where do you see me reverting against consensus? Obviously, the page has been a target of POV warriors, who seek to make changes without consensus. The revert I mentioned above shows that you are guilty of this too.

Do I need to post the diffs of you following me to four different articles to revert edits that I have made in the past few years, right after you returned to editing last month? I don't think this is the place to post that. -YMB29 (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

St. Augustine movement

Thanks for closing the RM discussion at Talk:St. Augustine movement. Can we have the article unprotected now so we can implement the decision? Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is move protected for three months but the text of the page is not protected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the history. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Appeal topic ban

Would you mind advising me of the procedure to go about appealing the topic ban issued to me through An/I in the I/P area.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

By looking at WP:RESTRICT, I notice you are topic banned from Tea Party articles. You can appeal this via WP:ARCA if you want. A review of WP:ARBPIA doesn't indicate that you have any I/P sanctions. If you know of any other ban please link to it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that's strange, was there a time limit on this?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not ask User:Deskana for his advice on how to appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done so,but explain, please, why you didn't simply explain the process yourself? Is that outside the scope of your ADMIN duties?

Personally, I'd rather not deal with you or Deskana again on this website.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Given that the topic ban was under discretionary sanctions, the appeals process is here. As mentioned in the "important notes" section, you can skip going to the enforcing administrator (but the consequence is that you eliminate that avenue for review in the future). If you already knew all of this, I apologize for jumping in. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Tgeairn for the link. Ubikwit, the other admins at AE will often want to know the opinion of the sanctioning admin about your appeal before they make up their own minds. So getting a response from him is worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I overlooked that your I/P topic ban was in fact logged, as User:Tgeairn has observed on another page. Under the new logging system it can be seen at WP:AC/DS/Log by searching for your name. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks. I've filed an appeal at AE, as Deskana seems to busy to reply. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Large Bonds Issue

It doesn't matter whether he is serious. I think that he is serious, in that he really believes this theory. If he doesn't believe it, then he is only a troll. As you and I know, I reported him at the board where I did because he had violated 3RR, and you warned him. Action under discretionary sanctions would require persistence after an alert, and we know that I alerted him.

It is just as well that he uploaded the images to Misplaced Pages rather than to Commons, because Misplaced Pages has a good deletion policy, and Commons is a mess. If (as we doubt) the images are real, but are secret, then that is its own reason for deletion, because Misplaced Pages is not Wikileaks (and, unlike Wikileaks, is in the United States), and secret images are not available under public domain or a copyleft. (Secrecy, like copyright, is a special form of intellectual property, and we do not steal intellectual property, even if it is questionable intellectual property.)

One of three things will happen. He will find other areas to edit (least likely but best). He will resume problematical editing and be sanctioned. He will go away.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Back in the old days when cowboy admins walked the earth he would be already blocked. This way he gets a chance to prove he is actually in outer space before getting blocked. Your info about copyright on secret images is interesting. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as to secret images. If the image is real, but is secret, then its publication is forbidden by the Espionage Act, for which the penalties are even more severe than violating copyright. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory that Freemasons started the World Wars in order to steal all of the world's gold is fringe, but would have to be dealt with by the community or the ArbCom. A conspiracy theory that Freemasons started the World Wars in order to steal the world's gold, and that subsequent events resulted in destruction of the World Trade Center has already been decided by the ArbCom. Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Tulisa

Thanks for Talk page message, yes, have indicated on singer's Talk page that agree with AndrewA new dab being made the baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I've now closed the move discussion at Talk:Tulisa (singer)#Requested move 17 January 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you online?

Ed, you online atm? I saw you've been active at the 3RR noticeboard. Can you have a look at semi-protecting Stargate and perhaps blocking the IP who keeps vandalising that page. There's a few of us who have been reverting the more obvious instances. It's been an ANI for a couple of hours but most northern-hem admins are asleep. The IP now seems determined to do as much damage as possible before being blocked. St★lwart 06:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotected Stargate one month. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant, mate, much appreciated. I'll close the ANI thread. St★lwart 07:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PabloOsvaldo17

I restored the block notice which he then removed again. Murry1975 (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

People are allowed to remove block notices, though they can't remove any declined unblock requests. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

AH, thats a bit counter intuitive. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PS he is going off on one, accusing of discrimination based on his (unknown until now) autism. Murry1975 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

BPS

Serb1914 has now gone on the offensive. He is posting ludicrous claims about Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović (without any sources) and associating it with extremism. Do you now see what you have done? I URGE you to IMMEDIATELY protect the page, in order to preserve its true, original content, just as you protected his pages. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please link to any place where you have tried to discuss this with him. I am leaving you a notice under WP:ARBEE because you haven't accepted any of the prior suggestions of how to resolve these quarrels. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack on you

I don't think The Destroyer Of Nyr is going to go quietly. See User talk:Meters#BPS and Serb1914 Meters (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism and edit war

• The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ask you to block The Destroyer Of Nyr. He have attacked me personally promoting violent Bosniak nationalism and is starting again an edit war without sources. This is outrageous I claim a reaction from Misplaced Pages. --Serb1914 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Please continue whatever you were doing previously. If User:The Destroyer Of Nyr prevents you from actually doing your work, bring it up with an admin. And if you want me to look into something, please link to where the problem is occurring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Serb 1914

• Serb1914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ask you to block Serb1914 as he is continuing to wage edit wars on several articles. This cannot be tolerated. I (and other contributors) can not even work normally. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And he is promoting violent Serb nationalism, Greater Serbia and even denying the genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion, does 'working normally' include discussing your ideas with other editors? You and User:Serb1914 could be blocked by any admin for breaking the WP:3RR rule. It looks like you have made nine reverts at Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina). If you expres willingness to wait for consensus, you might be able to avoid a block. The simplest thing for me is to block both of you, if some other admin doesn't do so first. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've started a talk on the talk page of The Destroyer of Nyr and on the page SNSD, but he refused talk and started violent edit war and personal attacks, so the situaton is very clear.--Serb1914 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They're both at or past 4RR today on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović, Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and Alliance of Independent Social Democrats. Meters (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:The Destroyer of Nyr was blocked 36 hours by another admin for edit warring. But The Destroyer did something useful by opening up a discussion at Talk:Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina). I encourage anyone interested in Bosnian political parties to participate there. Bosnian topics will benefit from the attention of editors who can read Serbo-Croatian. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

User: EdJohnston, would you like to act for something on the behavior of this editor.

His edit been removed by the neutral editors as below :

Even after different warning given as below;

You are acting so stern under WP:ARBIPA like on User:Noughtnotout and others. This fellow is habitual offender and not responding to earlier section specific warnings and last POV advice given above by User:Bjelleklang. His material pasted are removed thrice from a BLP article of DB in a week on POV ground by neutral editors. Is any further proofs are required?

Please act suitably.Statewatch (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Two admins have recently been looking into the Daiwoodi Bohra dispute, User:Black Kite and User:Bjelleklang. In case User:Summichum is not behaving correctly, he is already alerted to the WP:ARBIPA samctions. I trust this will be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

After warning on JAN,23 he has continued his partisan activity one way or another and on 29th he crossed all the limit and added the same material which was deleted by one of admin. You are so active and alerting all admin/editors of sanctions and banned 3-4 editors instantly within few mins/hours without giving them fair chance. Here this fellow doing the things of his will/choice even after one week of warning. You still feel that warning sufficient. Is it not strange?223.176.135.192 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are probably a sock, which may explain why this report may not get as much attention as otherwise. Anyway I've explained my concerns to User:Summichum. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks EDJ, All the valid reasons, argument, justified concerns shown in perfect Misplaced Pages style are opposed in the name of sock and the voice got eliminated. Thanks again for explaining the thing to the user. Hope you get succeed. 117.239.216.82 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

British Nigerian - Semi-Protection

Hi Ed, Can you advise why you have added a Semi Protection template to British Nigerian, according to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#British Nigerian the request has been declined, thanks Tmol42 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My semiprotection was to address the possible IP socking, as explained in the AN3 report which I just closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Looks like your efforts and actions have calmed this editor down pro tem at least, much appreciated. Tmol42 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ed,

Could you please advise me on my next course of action?

My main endeavor since the beginning to have accurate data on British Nigerian academic attainment. Despite the fact it was user MiddayExpress who first changed the British Nigerian page without seeking any consensus at all https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=British_Nigerian&oldid=640865401

My efforts were aimed reverting the change on the https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=British_Nigerian&oldid=644882849 and asking the user to seek consensus beforehand. For this I was censured with a warning and user MiddayExpress's changes are still on the current page.

I have played by the rules and not immediately tried to change the page again, since your warning. But since user MiddayExpress has suddenly gone quiet despite the provision of more supporting information on the talk page, I am not sure what the next step should be?

Should I change the page? since I feel I have provided more than enough information to support the sources of data. Also at the same time, I have compromised on acknowledging that older data should not be used.

Finally what I find most peculiar is that the link which MiddayExpress objected to the most citing WP:QS and WP:REDFLAG is used without issue in the Education section of Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom?

Also please note that the Economist itself is well known global economics publication dating back to 1843 with a current circulation of 1,574,803 (print); 100,000 (paid digital subscribers, so in no way can this source not be described as reputable.

Finally I appreciate I was warned about my communication with user Bbb23 with regards to the 3RR, so I feel I am talking a big risk in contacting a wikipedia administrator as I don't wish for this message to undermine my efforts to revert changes that were made by MiddayExpress without gaining consensus.

My desire to change the British Nigerian page is coming from a pure place which is why I have contacted you and I have deliberately focused on the articles and document despite consistent provocation from MiddayExpress while tackling this matter on the talk page.

At the same time I am uncertain whether I can even remove the 3RR warning on my userpage? so I have also left that in place

Thanks

Nograviti (talk)

References

1. Britain's Somalis: The road is long http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21583710-somalis-fare-much-worse-other-immigrants-what-holds-them-back-road-long Britain Ethnic Minorities Economist Print Edition Aug 2013

• See WP:DR for some steps you can consider when trying to resolve a content dispute. Simply reverting again will not address the problem. One option is the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Another is to open a WP:Request for comment. If you want your talk page comments to be persuasive they should be shorter. Also there's something about your signature that is unusual; it includes no date or time. This will confuse the archive bot. Please consider going to Special:Preferences and clear the checkbox in the Signature section. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I am not sure why my signature doesn't have a timestamp, nothing deliberate on my part. Since I have tried to gain consensus with the user I will open a a WP:Request for comment Thanks Nograviti (talk)

Are you trying to sign with three tildes instead of four? That would cause the date and time to be omitted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance Ed, but my signature formatting looks the same as yours (excluding the username of course) when I compare them when I select edit, am I missing something here? The only thing difference I can see is that you have #top in the User talk section of your signature Nograviti (talk) Thanks again

Your signature is still missing the date and time. Are you sure you are signing with four tildes, like this?: ~~~~. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Donald Ewen Cameron

I came across this article today for the first time. The article states that the (deceased) subject engaged in all sorts of extraordinary ethical violations. The sources for these statements are

1) "In addition to LSD, he experimented with various paralytic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power" - no citation given

2) "His "driving" experiments consisted of putting a subject into a drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple statements. These experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression" - A book, called "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate" published by NYTimes Books. The jacket flap describes the book as "John Marks reveals what was perhaps the most sinister activity ever engaged in by an organ of the United States government. He describes how the government conducted a series of secret programs to find ways to control human behavior.", which hardly sounds like a dispassionate academic investigation of the story.

3) "These experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression; many suffered permanent debilitation after these treatments." Such consequences included incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents" - sourced to an anti-ECT blog

4) "Naomi Klein states in her book The Shock Doctrine that Cameron's research and his contribution to MKUltra were not about mind control and brainwashing, but "to design a scientifically based system for extracting information from 'resistant sources.' In other words, torture." She then cites Alfred W. McCoy: "Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method." - Sourced to "The Shock Doctrine", which is described here as "In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.", which again hardly appears to be a dispassionate and careful reciting of the facts, more so the commentary of someone with a political position to push.

How much of this is allowed? The blogs I would think are clearly out of line, but non-textbook texts written by people pushing a political POV hardly seem to me to be sufficiently reliable to use to make these sorts of judgements about somone who presumably has living relatives.

I have no prior knowledge of the subject of this man's life or work. It may have really been that bad. But I worry about the sources here. I hate mass marketed books as sources because they are often written to promote a POV or to tell a good story so as to sell a lot of copies, but I don't know if my feelings are reflected in the sourcing rules. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's well-established that Cameron (as a highly-respected psychiatrist) did some questionable experiments on people that most likely would not be approved by ethics committees today. Just for one opinion see an op-ed published by Leonard S. Rubenstein in the New York Times on November 7, 1988. The title of his op-ed (which must have been approved by the NYT editors) was "The C.I.A. and the evil doctor". If Ewen Cameron were a living person special requirements would apply. Since Cameron died in 1967, BLP is not in force and the steps open to you seem to be those of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I see enough crazy, poorly sourced stuff posted in articles here that I found some of this troubling, but if he really was a bad guy I probably won't worry about it further. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Aergas Continues to wage edit war on 'mexicans of european descent' page post-ban

If you look at our DRN, we had with Robert McClellan here , the conclusion of that DRN was to specifically include the 7/8ths european ancestry designation in the body rather than the title, yet, aergas has unilaterally removed this once again. I am reporting this now, because I genuinely don't want to escalate this into an edit war. Alon12 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Alon12, Robert McClenon was clear enough when he directly told you that the DNR was inconclusive , why do you ignore everybody? after the blocking ended I started to discuss the issues with and called other editors as is supposed to be, but you are in the same plan you were two weeks ago. Didn't you learn anything? Aergas (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Huns talk page

I have warned the IP, which I suspect is Erik the Swed, from adding their opinion/information into my comments made on the Huns talk page. After giving the IP a warning on their talk page, Erik the Swed reverted my edit, placing the IP/Erik's opinions within my comments. Can you resolve this issue? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have semied both article and talk for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to get into any drag out dispute here, especially since Bear here posted implied IRL threats to my talk page. However If you review the contribution I have added three new proposals with source and links to the talk page which directly relate to the article. I cleaned up the prior revisions to which Bear complained about for him, only his rollback brought them back. I appeal for calm in this as I have 7 other sources on DNA and entomological details to contribute. Can you please unlock the talk page so that I can continue contributions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Swed (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me that you are abusing multiple accounts. Perhaps you can find a way to make useful contributions elsewhere until the semi expires. This would be a good time for you to announce whether you've previously edited under a different account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

actually I created this account because it was just using my IP addresses (which is what I believe wiki wants right?), so no this is not account abuse. Its also worth observing that I was actually contributing to the discussion by providing online sources to references made so people can read original sources directly. I am even in the process of getting UC Burkley to release a source paper that is not available online, yet is sighted multiple times. While I admit my formatting was poor that it hardly a reason to have threats made against me or just a blanket rollback under clearly BS claims. I've avoided contributing in the past because people had such horror stories about meeting page bullies, which I can see is actually a' thing' and I have to say has really soured my views on continuing to contribute to subjects I have studied and researched some 20 years now. So the answer is that I have to buzz off for 7 days, right.Erik the Swed (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You are still able to talk to User:Kansas Bear on their talk page. Maybe you can make a persuasive case there. If you do so, try not to break up anyone else's comments with your own post. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean beg the guy who jumped all over me and threatened me? Ahh no. I am sure he will revert everything I posted the moment it unlocks. Clearly the loudest voice always wins, just as people warned me. I've given up on contributing. Its been an entertaining 25 hour experiment in how good intentions means nothing. Good day.Erik the Swed (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)