| Revision as of 21:21, 2 December 2010 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,206 edits →My new editing restrictions: Carefully-chosen summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:26, 2 December 2010 edit undoCaptain Occam (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,011 edits →My new editing restrictionsNext edit → | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
| :::Mathsci, I think my comment accurately summarizes the drift of your email without revealing anything confidential. ('Sock' does not refer to anyone in particular). When I first got email from you, I should have considered the wisdom of closing your AE request with no further action, and told you to go directly to Arbcom, which handles confidential information. How did you expect the other participants in the case to react, knowing that you were contacting the admins ]? They would be rightly concerned about being negatively affected by secret information. ] (]) 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | :::Mathsci, I think my comment accurately summarizes the drift of your email without revealing anything confidential. ('Sock' does not refer to anyone in particular). When I first got email from you, I should have considered the wisdom of closing your AE request with no further action, and told you to go directly to Arbcom, which handles confidential information. How did you expect the other participants in the case to react, knowing that you were contacting the admins ]? They would be rightly concerned about being negatively affected by secret information. ] (]) 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::(Edit conflict) EdJohnston, I’ve already addressed this point in response to an e-mail from Shell. More importantly, if you’re just leaving it to ArbCom to investigate the charges of sockpuppetry, I really don’t see what this question has to do with your decision in the AE thread. If there’s some way that your question about this is important to discussing the outcome of the AE thread, then I’ll answer it, but otherwise I’d prefer that this discussion stay focused on the new sanctions you’ve imposed. | |||
| ::You’ve answered the first question I asked you about this, but not the second. You initially proposed that Mathsci receive the same sanction you were giving to me and Ferahgo, then later changed your mind about this, and you’ve said that your reversal of opinion wasn’t based on Mathsci’s e-mails. In that case, can you tell me what caused you to decide to sanction me and Mathsci unequally? As I said in my second question to you, I don’t think Mathsci has acted appropriately with regard to the RFC even if he suspects Sightwatcher and Woodsrock of being socks, and this behavior continued (with his comments to Cirt) even after your initial proposal to give him and me the same sanction. But evidently after you initially proposed that, something happened to make you decide that you should be more lenient with Mathsci than with me and Ferahgo. Can you explain what that decision was based on, and why you think Mathsci’s behavior with regard to the RFC was less problematic than anything Ferahgo or I have done? --] (]) 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:26, 2 December 2010
AE comments
I regret you see fit to give credence to Offliner's allegations. In particular I am disturbed by your appearing to taking "anti-Estonian" (as violating my topic ban) completely out of the context of the conversation it was a part of, which was the result of Petri's blatantly false allegations against me at Shell Kinney's talk. If I have misinterpreted please let me know. I have responded. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your comments in the AE have not been especially helpful. If you would offer to strictly adhere to your topic ban from now on, we might be able to get this issue done with quicker. If admins have the impression that your judgment is off, to the point where you really don't see how your further EEML-related disputation is causing trouble, they could decide to take firmer action. It seems as though you just can't keep quiet when an issue is being discussed about EE involving anybody you have quarrelled with in the past, like Petri. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Regrettably I was unexpectedly busy on family issues even having to take an extra day over the long weekend, so I have not read in detail (still have not) or responded at the enforcement request. I do not believe that expressing concerns or criticisms regarding EEML WITCH! calling—which by definition apply to myself whether or not I am explicitly named—while not commenting on the substance of an enforcement or other request regarding a specific article or actions at a specific article (i.e, the topic ban) in question is either (a) an "attack" by myself on another editor or (b) violates my ban in any manner. If ArbCom's clarification is that "anything EEML" (the arbitration and results and any mention thereof) also falls under the topic ban, then I consider that a radical extension of the concept and scope of the topic ban. However, as I already have plenty to do over the next month or two, I'm not going to dispute that. Lastly, it's only when editors who have baselessly attacked me in the past do so again either in name or as part of a group that "I can't keep quiet." It has nothing to do with a quarrelsome mindset on my part. I don't go around attacking editors. If I can kiss and make up with Viriditas, the fault here lies neither in the stars or myself. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)- I see the AE request has already been archived. Please note that by my math, my topic ban expires January 14, 2011 17:28 UTC. Even though Sandstein did unblock my first EEML topic-ban related block, I count topic ban expiration plus 3 weeks plus 24 hours plus 24 hours so I avoid any possibility of returning early. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)- I have sent you Wiki-Email regarding my perception of the AE request and surrounding events, as the AE request venue itself has been closed and posting here would violate the remedies which were put into effect. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have sent you Wiki-Email regarding my perception of the AE request and surrounding events, as the AE request venue itself has been closed and posting here would violate the remedies which were put into effect. PЄTЄRS
- I see the AE request has already been archived. Please note that by my math, my topic ban expires January 14, 2011 17:28 UTC. Even though Sandstein did unblock my first EEML topic-ban related block, I count topic ban expiration plus 3 weeks plus 24 hours plus 24 hours so I avoid any possibility of returning early. PЄTЄRS
- Regrettably I was unexpectedly busy on family issues even having to take an extra day over the long weekend, so I have not read in detail (still have not) or responded at the enforcement request. I do not believe that expressing concerns or criticisms regarding EEML WITCH! calling—which by definition apply to myself whether or not I am explicitly named—while not commenting on the substance of an enforcement or other request regarding a specific article or actions at a specific article (i.e, the topic ban) in question is either (a) an "attack" by myself on another editor or (b) violates my ban in any manner. If ArbCom's clarification is that "anything EEML" (the arbitration and results and any mention thereof) also falls under the topic ban, then I consider that a radical extension of the concept and scope of the topic ban. However, as I already have plenty to do over the next month or two, I'm not going to dispute that. Lastly, it's only when editors who have baselessly attacked me in the past do so again either in name or as part of a group that "I can't keep quiet." It has nothing to do with a quarrelsome mindset on my part. I don't go around attacking editors. If I can kiss and make up with Viriditas, the fault here lies neither in the stars or myself. PЄTЄRS
Your statement
Thank you for your comments in my case, although you did not comment in my favor. You helped me to better understand some of the issues. Hence I provided some diffs from my talk page . I understand that you might have some questions about this. If so, please ask, and I would be happy to discuss any possible misunderstandings here, rather than on arbitration pages.
- It would also be great if you suggest how exactly my existing ban could be modified. Limiting the scope of the ban would not be a good solution, because it does not address the problem. Actually, I thought about two possible options: (1) keeping the existing topic ban for a few more months (but do not make it indefinite), or (2) replacing the existing topic ban by 1 RR restriction for a few months. You probably would not recommend anything less than that. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion at User talk:Biophys.
- Responding to your question, I certainly do not mind archiving my talk page. Why I feel uncomfortable? Well, this is because of defamatory postings off-wiki that are linked to my talk page. In fact, I would strongly prefer to delete it, or at least change my username. What do you recommend? Biophys (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- A change of name is unlikely to help. People seem to know who you are, and there is not much that can be done about it. Even Arbcom can do nothing about what is said off-wiki. If you were to get a new account but then edit the same subjects, people would make the connection. To get a rest from annoying comments, consider a switch to scientific and cultural articles, at least for a period of time. We do need editors who are willing to write about Russian topics. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly would not mind switching to scientific and cultural articles related to Russia, for a period of time rather than indefinitely. But it might be a problem to define what exactly would be off-topic. Everything in Soviet topics may be "controversial". For example, the culture in Soviet Russia was officially a form of propaganda; many writers were sent to Gulag, and one of them even wrote such book. And you never know in advance what will cause a dispute. That's why I suggested a more general approach in the request for amendment. In fact, I am not even sure if I am going to edit a lot in this area. I can try carefully and see how it goes... But I do not want to be a subject of indefinite sanctions. That's for sure.Biophys (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you give examples of some scientific or cultural articles you would like to edit, that risk infringing your ban from Soviet Union topics? EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Everything. Soviet culture, just to start from something. But this is not the point. Actually, I edited a lot of articles that may be considered highly controversial without meeting any opposition, such as this. It was me who created Soviet program of biological weapons and List of Soviet agents in the United States, and no one objected. Can I create Soviet program of chemical weapons? Biophys (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you make a list of a dozen or so articles, and include it in your current request to Arbcom, it might be approved. Judging from the tone of the Arb comments in the original WP:ARBRB decision, it seems unlikely to me that they would entirely lift your topic ban at this point. We could also request that you be allowed to present further articles at WP:AE to be exempted from the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would be a reasonable option if I was desperate editing anything about Russia. But I do not really care. Neither have I strong nationalistic feelings. I can edit something else as well. All I wanted is not to be a subject of indefinite sanctions, because I am a law-abiding citizen of this project. Whatever they decide is fine.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- As you wish. It seems to me that such an approach is unlikely to get you a favorable result, if that's what you are seeking. You were not restricted for no reason at all. If you address the reason, you might get the sanction loosened, or eventually, lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I hope I addressed the problem in my statement. I am a rational person. If I could foresee the sanctions, I would certainly left these article to POV-pushers and allow them to do with articles whatever they want. I am not a fool to repeat my own mistakes twice.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thinking rationally, I do not see any reason why Arbcom can not allow me editing with 1RR restriction in this area. What kind of trouble can I possibly create? Certainly not edit-warring. And I am civil in discussions. If there are any "battleground" concerns, just ban me from all administrative pages, or whatever. I do not care.Biophys (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- POV-pushing. Activism. Creating an impression of consensus against neutral point of view. Is it enough? --Dojarca (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Taking into account how many editors with opposing views edit in this area, there is nothing I can do except creating new content on the subjects that do not cause anyone's objections. What's wrong with this? Nothing wrong, except wasting my time here instead of doing my work. So, maybe you are right after all. Biophys (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- POV-pushing. Activism. Creating an impression of consensus against neutral point of view. Is it enough? --Dojarca (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thinking rationally, I do not see any reason why Arbcom can not allow me editing with 1RR restriction in this area. What kind of trouble can I possibly create? Certainly not edit-warring. And I am civil in discussions. If there are any "battleground" concerns, just ban me from all administrative pages, or whatever. I do not care.Biophys (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I hope I addressed the problem in my statement. I am a rational person. If I could foresee the sanctions, I would certainly left these article to POV-pushers and allow them to do with articles whatever they want. I am not a fool to repeat my own mistakes twice.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- As you wish. It seems to me that such an approach is unlikely to get you a favorable result, if that's what you are seeking. You were not restricted for no reason at all. If you address the reason, you might get the sanction loosened, or eventually, lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would be a reasonable option if I was desperate editing anything about Russia. But I do not really care. Neither have I strong nationalistic feelings. I can edit something else as well. All I wanted is not to be a subject of indefinite sanctions, because I am a law-abiding citizen of this project. Whatever they decide is fine.Biophys (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you make a list of a dozen or so articles, and include it in your current request to Arbcom, it might be approved. Judging from the tone of the Arb comments in the original WP:ARBRB decision, it seems unlikely to me that they would entirely lift your topic ban at this point. We could also request that you be allowed to present further articles at WP:AE to be exempted from the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Everything. Soviet culture, just to start from something. But this is not the point. Actually, I edited a lot of articles that may be considered highly controversial without meeting any opposition, such as this. It was me who created Soviet program of biological weapons and List of Soviet agents in the United States, and no one objected. Can I create Soviet program of chemical weapons? Biophys (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you give examples of some scientific or cultural articles you would like to edit, that risk infringing your ban from Soviet Union topics? EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly would not mind switching to scientific and cultural articles related to Russia, for a period of time rather than indefinitely. But it might be a problem to define what exactly would be off-topic. Everything in Soviet topics may be "controversial". For example, the culture in Soviet Russia was officially a form of propaganda; many writers were sent to Gulag, and one of them even wrote such book. And you never know in advance what will cause a dispute. That's why I suggested a more general approach in the request for amendment. In fact, I am not even sure if I am going to edit a lot in this area. I can try carefully and see how it goes... But I do not want to be a subject of indefinite sanctions. That's for sure.Biophys (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- A change of name is unlikely to help. People seem to know who you are, and there is not much that can be done about it. Even Arbcom can do nothing about what is said off-wiki. If you were to get a new account but then edit the same subjects, people would make the connection. To get a rest from annoying comments, consider a switch to scientific and cultural articles, at least for a period of time. We do need editors who are willing to write about Russian topics. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Biophys, I am amazed that you could create an article about Soviet program of biological weapons without running into any controversy. I guess it is a different type of article than Communist terrorism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's an excellent question and related to your administrative duties. The answer: this is not about articles. Do you think that people who edit war around "Communist terrorism" article are really interested in the subject? If so, why did not they add more sourced content to the article as I did? See my comment at AE page. No, this is all about wikistalking.Biophys (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill has now responded at A/R/A and he advises against lifting your ban at this time. I still think you should propose a list of articles that you want to be cleared to work on; I don't see your ban being lifted any time soon. Your comment about stalking suggests that you don't accurately perceive the problem. Communist terrorism is one of the articles where I am amazed that any consensus could ever be found. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I asked arbitrators if it would be possible to limit the scope of the ban, as you suggested, just before you made your last comment there.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are talking about my "problem". Could you please explain what is it? Sure thing, I realize that I have certain POV, but my edits are sourced to books and improve the content. To be specific, did I do right thing by creating article "Soviet program of biological weapons" you just mentioned? Would it be better if we did not have such article at all? Biophys (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think this discussion is over. I presented some things you could agree to, and you did not agree. Your alternative ideas don't seem credible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Sorry for excessive comments. Could you or someone else please set up archiving my talk page for a time period of ~1 week? That was your initial suggestion. I do not know how to do it.Biophys (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've set up archiving by MiszaBot on your talk page. You should expect to see some threads archived by about 29 November. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I made a kind of inquiry, and it looks like these off-wiki postings are damaging for my scientific career. Probably, it might be a good idea to move/rename my user page (together with talk page) and indeed focus on harmless subjects if I am allowed to edit in this area. Do you think that would be something reasonable, and how should I proceed? Thank you for your help.Biophys (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've set up archiving by MiszaBot on your talk page. You should expect to see some threads archived by about 29 November. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Sorry for excessive comments. Could you or someone else please set up archiving my talk page for a time period of ~1 week? That was your initial suggestion. I do not know how to do it.Biophys (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think this discussion is over. I presented some things you could agree to, and you did not agree. Your alternative ideas don't seem credible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are talking about my "problem". Could you please explain what is it? Sure thing, I realize that I have certain POV, but my edits are sourced to books and improve the content. To be specific, did I do right thing by creating article "Soviet program of biological weapons" you just mentioned? Would it be better if we did not have such article at all? Biophys (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I asked arbitrators if it would be possible to limit the scope of the ban, as you suggested, just before you made your last comment there.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Kirill has now responded at A/R/A and he advises against lifting your ban at this time. I still think you should propose a list of articles that you want to be cleared to work on; I don't see your ban being lifted any time soon. Your comment about stalking suggests that you don't accurately perceive the problem. Communist terrorism is one of the articles where I am amazed that any consensus could ever be found. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to ask at WP:CHU to have your account renamed. It is not clear to me how that helps you. If you are truly willing to change fields of interest, then create a brand new account, and stop using the old one. The new account should not contribute to Russian topics, or others may figure out who you are. If you decide to create a new account, you should send email to Arbcom telling them about the old and new account names, since the new account would inherit your current topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. The easiest way to identify who am I is by looking at my science-related contributions. This might help as long as I stay away of certain subjects here.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Teramo
Ciao! Just to notify you that, immediately after his ban expired, the Teramo vandal has returned, abruptly reverting to his awful version, and losing all the changes I had had made basing on his inputs!! See the article's talk page. Notice also how a bot immediately re-added an interwiki on his version. Ciao and thanks. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I left him a final warning, since his last edit was five days ago. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- So far his only move was that to blank his talk page. Is this allowed? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm afraid he is not getting the message, though. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- So far his only move was that to blank his talk page. Is this allowed? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Rabbi Pinto
- Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 65.112.21.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hey there! Wanted to let you know that soon after the ban you placed on Rabbi Pinto's page was lifted on 11/24, user 68.173.122.113 returned on 11/26 as user 65.112.21.194 and added biased information that had been removed over and over again by multiple contributors (not just myself). User 68.173.122.113 is user 65.112.21.194 and vice versa (perhaps this is sockpuppetry). Is it possible to ban both of these users from the page? I'd like to avoid future edit wars with this person. Thanks! Photocredit (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- The IP only made one edit since the semiprotection expired on 24 November. Not enough to justify renewing the protection, since the edit wasn't defamatory. I will leave a note for the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. If he continues to include slanderous or defamatory material, or if he chooses to frame things in an overtly biased manner -- whether it's amended or not -- I will be sure to notify you. Thanks for your help. Photocredit (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Whats truly amazing is that all of the primary users on Pintos page are people who never before edited any Wiki pages when I am in fact the creator of the Pinto page. What constitutes vandalism is it truth and balance ? Please advise what is biased about including the cost of perhaps the most expensive synagogue in the US ? Or that he is considered controversial ? You of course are aware I credited this page, and that user Photocredit has never before used wiki previous to this entry ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Babasalichai, perhaps you can clarify whether the IP address 65.112.21.194 belongs to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring @ Holodomor
It's being ongoing for weeks but I think it's getting worse (potential IP socks are popping up, 3RR be damned, discussion page is futile, etc.) The current issue is with user:Ingy pushing his pro-Soviet POV and edit warring1, 2, 3. I recommend getting it to the last stable version (where it said broadly 2.6-10m victims to stay neutral) and putting a temp lock on it to get some consensus? I tried getting a discussion going to get all scholarly estimates together to come up with a neutral solution but that wasn't adopted. I dunno, I'm out of ideas..--Львівське (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have fully protected the article two weeks. If you think that the main dispute is the number of people who died in the famine, perhaps you could open up a WP:Request for comment. Either that, or arrange a talk page straw vote to see where people stand. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Will do. Hopefully this time-off will give people a chance to sort out their issues. Thanks.--Львівське (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Concern about IP edits at Hugo Almeida
- Hugo Almeida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 86.166.73.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi there ED, VASCO here,
please pay attention to Hugo Almeida's article, some anon "user" has been using the page the last hour, writing all kind of Peacock/Weasel/POV words, with appalling grasp of English and engaging in overlinking as well. I have already rolled it back, but maybe he will come back to add his "contributions" again and/or insult me...Kids.
Thanks very much in advance, happy week (and also note - i think you are not familiar with soccer, so you'll have to trust me on this one - the "user" is doing that in other articles as time "marches on") - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am concerned that this user could be committing copyright violations. His new material looks like typical 'sports talk' from newspaper columns, complete with the usual cliches. if you have the patience to do some Google searching, perhaps you could find the website he might be copying from. Maybe the player's own website, or that of his football club? You have not yet tried to communicate with this IP, and I would suggest you try that. I changed the heading of this post to be more neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your assistance, indeed. I have also rolledback his next "tirade", at Ezequiel Lavezzi - there, the player "runs another team ragged", amongst other charmers - Get in touch with the IP? I would not be surprised at all if HE gets in touch with me, and not very friendly i suspect (i might be wrong, but that's how i feel). - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- And asking your question: no, that kind of "phrasing" does not appear in either the club's website or the player's (he does not have one). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pay attention to these charmers, in Fernando Llorente (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fernando_Llorente&diff=next&oldid=399462851), the user says the player "is likely to score a career-high in goals", a "testament to how good he really is" (written here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fernando_Llorente&diff=next&oldid=399463344) ...what on earth is this?!? If you do decide to block, i better brace myself for some serious insults. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sad but true - although i will never be 100% sure of course - the "user" has proceeded to insult me in my user page, with a very similar IP. Like Martin Luther King, i have a (much more modest) dream: "One day only registered users will join hands and make WP a better place" :( - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have included a dscussion of your recent actions, which I'm slightly confused about, in the request for clarification. Please could you comment there? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think if the topic bans from the R&I case are to be extended, this should be done the same for all of the topic banned editors who are still active—me, Ferahgo, and also Mathsci. I would willingly accept this as a reasonable solution if it’s done equally for all of us. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Communist terrorism
Although I do not support the idea to apply the 1RR restriction to this article (as well as the 1RR as whole, which in current situation became a hidden form of vote, and, therefore, is against WP policy), I suggest you to be consistent in your attempts to restrict an opportunity for edit wars. IMO, the article should be permanently semi-protected, because in a situation when one cannot make more than one revert it is very tempting to use IP for that (the recent example is .) I have no desire to initiate any sockpuppet investigation against this IP, however, let me point out that during last six months no IP made useful contribution to this article, so it can be safely semi-protected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- So far there is only one IP edit in the month of November. If it continues, semi may be considered. I am surprised that the editors on this article get along so badly. The underlying issue (how to structure the article) does not look like it should be terribly hard to reach agreement on. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- It continues . --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- It continues . --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Because you commented at AN/I
You wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are asking Arbcom to lift a sanction that was not imposed by them, but by the community. I'm not sure what they will do. Also not entirely sure why you are so keen to get the sanctions lifted. It seems that a new application at AN in a few months might succeed. The last AN review was in October, which was very recent. I thought that Sandstein wrote a good summary of the discussion. The only practical effect of the current sanctions is to keep you from working on Western Sahara articles. Too-frequent appeals of the sanctions may work against you. Also, even in the last AN review it did not appear that you were very eager to hear what people had to say. Consider opening up an WP:Editor review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong version
Hi Ed, I was not going to re-enter info removed by NSH001 and Nableezy, but the bottom line is they removed sourced information only because . user:NSH001 edit summary is wrong. There was no BLP violation there. You protected a wrong version.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Better to comment in the AE, rather than here. We have a biographical subject who is a colorful character who says surprising things all the time, and people are trying to keep BLP violations out of his article. That could be an argument for full-time protection, since the task is so difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
My new editing restrictions
As I said in my last post in the AE thread, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for editors topic banned in the R&I case to also be disallowed from participating in other discussions related to these articles, so I’m not going to ask you to completely undo the decision you made in the AE thread. However, I do think it’s unreasonable for this sanction to be applied unequally between me, Ferahgo and Mathsci, because as far as I understand Mathsci has caused just as much continued conflict in this area as Ferahgo and I have. Based on my understanding of this situation, what I think would be reasonable is for him, Ferahgo and myself to be treated equally in this respect.
The reason why the question of whether topic bans from this case should be extended originally came up is because of Mathsci’s several recent AE threads, and Timothy Canens stated here that he believed all of this behavior was unhelpful, referring to Mathsci’s AE thread specifically. Your initial proposal there also called for this restriction to apply equally to me, Mathsci and Ferahgo. However, after Mathsci privately contacted you and Timothy Canens via e-mail, you changed your position to say that you think Ferahgo and I need to be prevented from participating in further discussions related to this topic, but that Mathsci does not. I’m not a party to your private correspondence with Mathsci, but as per this decision from ArbCom, you have a responsibility to explain your reasoning that led to treating me and Mathsci differently in this respect.
With that in mind, there are two questions that I’d like you to answer about the decision that you made.
- The only two admins who participated in the discussion about this sanction were you and Timothy Canens. Both of you were in contact with Mathsci via e-mail, and neither of you discussed the situation with me or Ferahgo, even when I asked you here how you thought Mathsci’s behavior towards Cirt was acceptable. Can you explain how in a dispute between two users (me and Mathsci), you consider it reasonable to let your and Timothy Canens’ decision be influenced by private correspondence with only one of the two users, without any input from the other user or the rest of the community?
- Mathsci’s private correspondence with you presumably had to do with his suspicion that Sightwatcher, who posted the RFC, is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Mathsci has been discussing this suspicion with ArbCom for the past two weeks, but it’s clear that ArbCom has not yet decided that this is the case, or else Sightwatcher would have already been blocked or topic banned. Given that these allegations have not yet been proven, can you explain why it’s unproblematic for Mathsci to complain about the RFC at AE, and complain in an unrelated discussion about Cirt’s agreement with the RFC? Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for him to just wait for ArbCom to make a decision about whether Sightwatcher is a legitimate user?
As stated in the arbitration ruling about user responsibility, if you aren’t able to justify the decision you made about this in public, you should not have made it. I also think you should modify your decision to treat me and Mathsci unequally if you aren’t able to justify it here. If you aren’t willing to either modify your decision or answer my questions about the basis for it, I’ll probably be appealing it further. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was not influenced by the content of any emails received from Mathsci in arriving at my closure of the AE request. One was a general comment, complaining about some edits by Ferahgo, that did not seem to have much to do with the AE request. I did not look to see what those edits were. The other was some speculation about a new sock (other than SightWatcher or Woodsrock). I have not looked into that either. Mathsci said he had already sent the sock information to Arbcom. Perhaps I should start returning unread any mail I receive about an AE case while it is still pending.
- Personally, I would welcome any clarification you can give as to whether you think SightWatcher or Woodsrock could be anyone you know personally or have communicated with electronically. Apologies if you have already addressed this point. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I neither used the word meatpuppet or sockpuppet in the second email, which was for your information only. Deleting it would be fine but talking about the contents without my permission is not. Please could you be more careful in the future and have a little more consideration for other users? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Mathsci, I think my comment accurately summarizes the drift of your email without revealing anything confidential. ('Sock' does not refer to anyone in particular). When I first got email from you, I should have considered the wisdom of closing your AE request with no further action, and told you to go directly to Arbcom, which handles confidential information. How did you expect the other participants in the case to react, knowing that you were contacting the admins ex parte? They would be rightly concerned about being negatively affected by secret information. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) EdJohnston, I’ve already addressed this point in response to an e-mail from Shell. More importantly, if you’re just leaving it to ArbCom to investigate the charges of sockpuppetry, I really don’t see what this question has to do with your decision in the AE thread. If there’s some way that your question about this is important to discussing the outcome of the AE thread, then I’ll answer it, but otherwise I’d prefer that this discussion stay focused on the new sanctions you’ve imposed.
- You’ve answered the first question I asked you about this, but not the second. You initially proposed that Mathsci receive the same sanction you were giving to me and Ferahgo, then later changed your mind about this, and you’ve said that your reversal of opinion wasn’t based on Mathsci’s e-mails. In that case, can you tell me what caused you to decide to sanction me and Mathsci unequally? As I said in my second question to you, I don’t think Mathsci has acted appropriately with regard to the RFC even if he suspects Sightwatcher and Woodsrock of being socks, and this behavior continued (with his comments to Cirt) even after your initial proposal to give him and me the same sanction. But evidently after you initially proposed that, something happened to make you decide that you should be more lenient with Mathsci than with me and Ferahgo. Can you explain what that decision was based on, and why you think Mathsci’s behavior with regard to the RFC was less problematic than anything Ferahgo or I have done? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)