Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:02, 14 March 2011

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.

Reply

Talkback

User talk:BullRangifer#User:Richardmalter Also. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaron Lanier

Hi, EdJohnston.

I have to respectfully object to your not taking action except to warn me regarding the edit war at Jaron Lanier.

Please just look at the source as compared with fourth reversion which is the one reverted as a supposed violation of wp:blp.

Jaron Lanier himself, as published by Edge Magazine, says (with my bolding):

My Misplaced Pages entry identifies me (at least this week) as a film director. It is true I made one experimental short film about a decade and a half ago. The concept was awful: I tried to imagine what Maya Deren would have done with morphing. It was shown once at a film festival and was never distributed and I would be most comfortable if no one ever sees it again.

The comment in the fourth reversion which was attributed to the above quote as a ref described Lanier as (with my bolding):

"Jaron Zepel Lanier (born May 3, 1960) pronounced /ˈdʒɛərɨn lɨˈnɪər/ is an American computer scientist, composer, visual artist, author and onetime experimental filmmaker."

A warning to me, based on the premise that I "may" have violated BLP is grossly unfair and there is no grounds for allowing the violation of 3rr to stand. Please withdraw the warning.

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is enough here to raise BLP concerns, since we know the subject has objected to some of this language. The proper thing is to reach a talk page consensus. You should not keep reverting just because you believe you're right, if you can't convince anyone else. Putting minor events in the lead sentence could be an issue under WP:UNDUE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the warning from my talk page. You may disagree with the value of the edit, but I did not violate wp:blp or even come close to it. Lanier describes himself in a reliable source as a one time experimental film maker. In the meantime you are allowing Viriditas to execute wholesale reversions which delete reliable sources for such things as the virtual reality gloves not mentioned in the remainder of the article. Please address this four time deletion of sources. μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The warning does not say that you violated WP:BLP. It says that if you continue to revert the article without getting consensus you may be in trouble. That was the finding of my close of the AN3 report. Edit warring is blockable, though no blocks were issued in this case. Why should it be a hard task to open a discussion on the article talk page, and wait to see if you can persuade the others? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Persuade what others? This is only one editor who reverted my edits wholesale with differing reasons given every time. I intend, but am afraid to restore the references which he deleted wholesale four times without any regard to the filmmaker comment. Are you telling me I need consensus to restore references reverted four times? That, basically, I cannot edit the article without his prior approval? I get the impression from your repeatedly not answering the specifics that you are not looking at the actual substance and detail of the edits, just saying there might be some BLP issue and putting an unwarranted warning on me which hampers me from editting the article with the same freedom anyone else has. I don't want that warning on my talk page if it is going to be used in the future against me when I have in no way violated or even come close to violating BLP. There is no evidence of my having violated or intending to violate BLP or of needing any warning. Please withdraw the warning. Please answer me specifically on the restoral of the references without regard to the filmmaker comment. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to me to resolve content disputes. Since BLP is a recognized exception to WP:3RR, I am expected to judge whether it may apply, before closing a case. I concluded that Viriditas' reverts were covered by BLP. (Yours had no such justification). A different admin might have reached a different result; for example, he might have blocked both parties. Your best bet for the future is to persuade other content editors, and not strive to litigate it at the admin level. If a clear consensus is reached, anyone who reverts against it may be sanctioned. If you don't like the warning, you can remove it from your talk page. What's not OK is for you to keep reverting a BLP article without support from others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you to resolve the dispute over the film maker issue which is what Viriditas falsely claimed to be a wp:blp issue. I am asking you to tell me explicitly whether I can edit the article for other issues like restoring the references without seeking Viriditas's prior approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

Consider getting a third person to join the discussion. One way to do that is to open a thread at WP:BLP/N. Other possibilities are WP:Third opinion or a WP:Request for comment. You could ask Viriditas if he objects to your adding references. I don't see any comment from you at Talk:Jaron Lanier. If other admins look at the issue and see that you haven't even tried using the article talk page, they won't be very impressed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise that I cannot further edit the article without Viriditas' approval. Given your repeated failure to tell me otherwise, and given that the references have nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called BLP issue, I am simply going to restore them, since they were reverted wholsale four times without any overriding justification. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you try to restore contested material to that article without making the slightest effort to find consensus first, you may be blocked. It would fit the definition of WP:Edit warring. I do not know why Viriditas was removing those references, but you haven't even tried asking him for his reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In essence, your attitude has been that something is going on - you don't know what - but something about BLP sounds good and the easy thing to do is to blame the messenger regardless of what the underlying facts are. I could simply have reverted Viriditas and we would both have been blocked and my comments would have stood as the last version - an entirely more fair result than me being warned vaguely not to edit the article without his permission while his wholesale reversions stand without comment.

This is terribly annoying - for you as much as I assume for me. I don't want to edit this article at all under such unequal conditions. I see no hint of good faith from Viriditas, with his commands to me in the edit summaries, his wholesale reverts versus my careful ones, his false accusations, and his decision to begin a conversation on the talk page a half hour after his fourth reversion.

You have my promise that I will unwatch the article and refrain from editing it ever again. I request one last time, please, that you withdraw that warning from my talk page. There is no reason to believe I need any warning on BLP policy. Putting it there was an easy out, and unfair to me. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove that warning from your own talk page if it bothers you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am asking you as the administrator who issued it to withdraw it. I don't think asking an administrator for a direct answer is an imposition. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'll agree not to edit the article for a month I'll withdraw the warning. Or if you make a real effort to compromise with Viriditas. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Question from EmmanuelM

You banned me for two months from editing articles on Israel and Palestine. I spent 4 hours writing my response to Judith. The least I expect from you is an explanation, detailing the WP policies I violated. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You have now been reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement twice (once in January, once in February) for breaking the WP:1RR rule on Israeli-Palestine articles. Links have been provided to you that lead to the relevant policies. Please read WP:ARBPIA and WP:Edit warring and then come back here if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Read this. I am appealing. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed -- Emmanuelm appears not to have gotten the message that he's banned from talk pages as well (e.g. on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations). Perhaps this aspect could be reinforced. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reminded him on his user talk, and told him how to appeal the topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with vandalism

I don't know how to report this. But the List of Mayday episodes article is being constantly vandalized by a user known as Michael5046. He fails to heed warnings given to him, or to read the article's talk page for why the article is edited in the way it is. He hasn't just reverted my work, but that of another user. He's working on revision 5 or 6 now. Help is needed- William 18:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for five days. Editors should wait for the result of the RfC. This is a content dispute, so you should not describe it as vandalism. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-history

Thanks for your mediation on the Shugborough Inscription war. I am so thoroughly appalled by Elephantwood's conduct that it smarts to see his revision remain locked permanently on the page, when several other users have objected to his behaviour and his revisions.

Would it be possible to remove his edits, return it to the last good edit (whatever that might be), and then lock it again? His reasons for the edits, and the edits themselves were unbelievably misleading and he's been caught manipulating not only me, but the community and the admins of wiki.

He also doesn't appear to have a single supporter for these edits. Boing has criticised him, as have Paul B and DeCausa. So has Lerdthened. And S.G. And Doctalk. So have you. So have I. Yet he cannot find any support for his views or his edits (which were made without any consultation, and which reverted an edit made by Paul Barlow an award-winning wikipedian).

Surely wiki wouldn't allow Elephant's unmoderated edits to remain locked against consensus (8 vs 1) like this? The page is exactly how EW wants it to look. That alone is annoying. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I do not necessarily endorse the new subheading for the Morton Solution (though I don't see why not - and I do not know a single reason to oppose it), but I do propose that EW's edits, now and in future, be removed and filtered. At least 8 wiki users have publicly accused Elephantwood of poor conduct, and his claims re Morton have been discredited as misrepresentation and manipulation. If he wants to revert Paul Barlow's edit, he needs to supply a good reason. In the meantime, EW's edits probably shouldn't remain locked on the page. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is an RfC at Talk:Shugborough inscription#A J Morton's theory - what importance to give to it? but it seems to have only two participants, you and Elephantwood. Neither of you has ever edited about any topic other than the Shugborough inscription, so you are not exactly regular editors. (Consider creating an account). It is possible you can find a WikiProject where you can tell people about the RfC and ask them to comment. It may take longer than a week to collect enough opinions. Try to avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've contributed to dozens of pages over the years, though I still do not have the knowledge Elephantwood has. I've been honest about my IPs, my identity and my opposition to pseudo-edits from fans of the Grail. If the only way to get this kind of nonsense removed, or at least get it further clarified and classified as nonsense, is to go around the halls of wikipedia asking people for support, I don't think I'm up for that. Sounds a little demeaning under the circumstances. I've written a fairly comprehensive appeal on the talk page of the Shugborough inscription. 85.179.76.167 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand "I've been honest about my IPs, my identity and my opposition to pseudo-edits from fans of the Grail". Can you say more? It is easy to create an account, and it is easy for you to link to your previous IPs from your talk page if you choose to do so. The tone of the debate at Talk:Shugborough inscription is so nasty that other editors may not feel comfortable dropping in there to offer their advice. We have a number of regular WP editors (with accounts :-) who are experts in history who do show up sometimes when they are asked nicely. I observe that User:Boing! said Zebedee has been working with you on that page and I encourage you to listen to any advice he may provide. I noticed that you removed some of your intemperate comments from the Shugborough page and that was certainly a good idea. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I know...I am so sorry for bringing this to your talk page. Lesson learned. 85.179.139.152 (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the formal Longevity notice

Just to let you know, I have replied back to you on my talk page about your request for clarification on my activities to date. In particular, I would like you to justify your statement, "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Misplaced Pages' ought to receive this message." That may be construed as generalization and a violation of several guidelines, which I'm not trying to seek out... but at least Assume good faith and maybe unacceptable behavoir since you misrepresented me by clumping me together with other members of The 110 Club without quoting an actual violation of mine using a particular diff that showed that I may be participating in unacceptable behavior. That was partly why I asked you why SirFozzie hadn't given me the same notice, while you did. Not trying to put you into a corner or anything, grins, but since you sent me a formal notice, you naturally have to justify your action. I hope you understand that. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that blocks and sanctions may be appealed, but not notices. SirFozzie is a member of Arbcom, and I am an admin who chooses to work at WP:AE. Our roles are different. I have replied on your talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I belatedly saw your comment here on your talk page before I already replied again on my talk page. Apologizes as I did not know that I cannot appeal a notice even if an administrator may have done it after coming to an incorrect conclusion that a notice would be needed (where one may not be needed). I will keep that in mind in the future and hope to be able to recommend somewhere that a notice can also be appealed. Thanks for the clarification about your role as well as SirFozzie's. Much appreciated. Thanks, CalvinTy 21:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Longevity RfE

I read your comment about possibly topic-banning NickOrnstein. We'll see how Nick responds but I hope that that is something that we can avoid. He seems to be very knowledgeable about this topic and if his conduct issues can be corrected, he could be a valuable contributor to these articles. Again, we'll see how Nick responds, but I'm hoping for a 0RR or 1RR restriction or perhaps a ban from articles themselves but still allow him to participate on the talk page. Perhaps this will get him into the habit of discussing things with his fellow editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears as though Nick engages in slow-motion edit warring and does not like to give reasons for his edits. If he is willing to address that, something might be worked out. If you have some diffs of good edits he has made, perhaps you could add those in a comment at WP:AE. This would help to give a fuller picture, since his own defence is quite unpersuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe I take that back. The first 'good' edit I look at seems good at first. For some strange reason, he puts the cite in the flippin' edit summary and not the article itself. Now we have an unsourced claim about a living person. Grr.... This isn't the only time he's done this. But to be fair, he occasionally puts the source in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Did my redactions address all your concerns? Say if you need me to take more out. Thanks for your notification. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he only wanted you to remove the third name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis

Ed, I recently took a break from Misplaced Pages at 04:07, 5 March 2011 after Medeis filed a 3RR report against me over BLP issues I reported. Imagine my surprise to find upon my return, that Medeis has been engaging in edit warring over the exact same BLP issues on Mark Steyn during my absence: Please see the talk page discussion. Medeis is still edit warring over poor sources on BLP articles and does not show any understanding from his last round of edit warring over at Jaron Lanier. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add your views at Talk:Mark Steyn. Medeis has already commented there. If you feel that BLP is being violated at Mark Steyn you could make a report at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Misplaced Pages:AN3#User:2.89.119.157 reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Semi)

Hello, EdJohnston. I don't mind the result but I'm just curious: Don't admins in Misplaced Pages block Sockpuppeteers? Fleet Command (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The 2.89.* IP seems to be providing actual technical content at Talk:WebM. If you think his contributions are disruptive to the talk page, let me know. It is seldom worthwhile to block an IP-hopper. If you believe his edits are creating a serious problem on the talk page, semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is all I have to say on the edit war debate going on

. You can also view . Quest is absolutely correct on this score. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic Bans, Longevity, and Off-Wiki

EdJohnston, I generally find you to be a reasonable, neutral, third-party admin. That's why I'm asking to discuss this below comment and proposed further sanctions:

"Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Misplaced Pages process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted."

Now, we can understand what "editing" means on Misplaced Pages...changing what articles say. Commenting on...involves talk pages. "Participating in any Misplaced Pages process"...understood.

But I don't see making comments on the 110 Club or elsewhere to be "participating" in a "Misplaced Pages" process. It's a 110 Club process.

And the reality of it is the above ban is unworkable when both David in DC and Itsmejudith continue to taunt me, for example here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ryoung122#I_object_to_your_longevity-related_announcement

I'd like to mention that I think the ArbCom failed to resolve the current dispute. Why is that?

1. I correctly noted that "David in DC was part of the problem, not a part of the solution." But despite his long history of edit warring, wiki-stalking, canvassing, making fun of others, etc., as usual Misplaced Pages policies seem only to apply to those who have something going on in real life outside Misplaced Pages. David in DC was involved front-and-center with JJBulten and Itsmejudith, canvassing in AFD "votes" to "win" results contrary to Misplaced Pages's best interests...and that continues.

David in DC has insisted that the GRG was not a "reliable source" for months. After the RS noticeboard decided it was, he is now saying that just because a source is reliable in itself doesn't mean the "lists" are. That's like saying that MLB.com is reliable, but not the list of home run hitters on the site. Nonsense.

I also note that I originally ran into David in DC on a non-longevity-related topic, and one that I "won" (he wanted to delete the article on Sebastian Bonnet, but I recreated it...he then made a comment that was offensive), and thus I do feel that he had a personal grudge and has been carrying it out.

2. Itsmejudith has, until this week, been somewhat more reasonable in her comportment with others. Yet her proposals have been mind-bogglingly bad, basically a "let's delete everything" argument.

Now, someone might say I'm digging the hole I'm in deeper...but the real point here is that I tried to follow the ArbCom topic ban decision in good faith, and the result was that David in DC and Itsmejudith abused this result to continue to talk about me, taunt me (again, check out several David in DC comments on my talk page), make false or exaggerated claims against me (yes, I made some comments on the 110 Club, but guess what? that doesn't make Misplaced Pages editors whom I met first on Misplaced Pages "meatpuppets") and potentially damage my professional reputation (including claiming that I was not quotable...he's confusing Ryoung122 with Robert Young, not the same...Ryoung122 may have been topic-banned, but Robert Young, the Guinness expert on longevity, is a real person, not an avatar). What has been done to me on Misplaced Pages by these two is not acceptable. But the real issue is the damage they are doing to the topic area. My main concern is that the subject of human longevity has only recently (since 1979) swung in favor of the scientific position on human longevity as opposed to the mythical paradigm of human longevity. It's important for those growing up now and reading Misplaced Pages to get some understanding that when they see news reports of "130" year-olds in (former Soviet) Georgia, they should approach such claims cautiously and skeptically...not for example, Antisa Kvichava's son is only 70 years old, a huge generation gap, and she has no birth record. Further, a list of 100+ cases where a person claimed to be 110+ but turned out to be less than 110+ is a great way to get the message across that, um, maybe just maybe that claim to age 130 up in the mountains somewhere might not be believable. And most of all, the data from verified sources well-confirm that.

In fact, the data on supercentenarians is so overwhelming that there's little room for rational debate. On one side, we have science; on the other, we have fiction. It's like evolution versus creationism. One side is based on science, on tested observation. The other side is based on believing what we want to believe because it makes us comfortable.

So, Mr. Johnston, when banned am I and gone, what will Misplaced Pages do with the two cabalists who have pushed against outside-source consensus, all in the hysterical attempt to "tear down a walled garden." Their idea of pruning is akin to clear-cutting a forest:blatantly irresponsible and mismanageable. You said yourself...what is to be done if Misplaced Pages won't allow sources to be cited, even when those sources come from the acknowledged experts in the field?

David in DC has clearly stated that he thinks experts should go to Citizendium. May I remind you that when Misplaced Pages was in its early stages, it SOUGHT experts to write articles...long before people like David in DC came along.

Since that time, Misplaced Pages has allowed itself to be degraded from its original encyclopedic mission. What SHOULD matter is that the content be encyclopedic and reflect reliable-source consensus outside Misplaced Pages.

Instead, what we have is that editors like David in DC and Itsmejudith, who have personal biases against the topic and have vowed to "tear down", have ruled the day. Why? Because it's a lot easier to tear down that to build up, and few are going to invest quality time when their work is only of ephemeral value.Ryoung122 07:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for guidance

The following is copied from User talk:Phatius McBluff, where, because Phatius had upbraided me for raising such questions on an article talk page, I put my request. Unfortunately, Phatius is inactive at present, so I am turning to you for advice. Esoglou (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As you well know, it was agreed that

LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice.

LoveMonkey may add information about Eastern Orthodox commentary (positive or negative) on Roman Catholic teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice.

I don't think it was a direct violation of the agreement for LoveMonkey to restore a vandalistic edit that I believed it was my duty to undo. (I can find no reference anywhere to the supposed "Sir Raleigh Atra Arzon", who allegedly burned numerous cathedrals, actions resulting in a hatred and revenge that gave rise to the Church of Rome under Charlemagne and his successors!) But I do not think that LoveMonkey's restoration of that edit, with a claim in the edit summary that I know John Romanides made this strange statement and it can be sourced, was, to say the least, good Misplaced Pages practice. Admittedly, LoveMonkey soon removed the reference to the curious Sir Raleigh Atra Arzon, but he then inserted the claim, "It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose", an unattributed claim about the Roman Catholic Church that I suspect is a violation of the agreement. (Before LoveMonkey's editing today, the unsourced statement was that it was then that the Church of Rome "arose out of obscurity", not that it was then that the Church of Rome "arose". That statement was questioned since March 2009, but now LoveMonkey has removed the "citation needed" tag, having inserted as a footnote a long quotation from Romanides that does not say that the Church of Rome arose only under Charlemagne and his successors, but is instead an attack on Augustine, the "Franks" and the "Franco-Latin papacy".)

With this edit LoveMonkey inserted eleven paragraphs, which I presume are a long quotation from Romanides, but he did not "in the body of the article" clearly attribute the eleven paragraphs to Romanides, nor did he clearly identify them as opinion, rather than as factual information about the Franks and the "Romans".

Was it perhaps a violation also to insert as factual information the statement that the Church of Rome arose "under the school of Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin"?

What am I allowed to do with regard to obvious errors such as LoveMonkey's "Frankish Empire of Goths"? The Franks were not Goths, and Romanides, whom LoveMonkey cites, does not make the curious claim that they were.)

Did I do wrong in undoing vandalism? LoveMonkey himself claims to be free to revert edits to the article, but that I, on the contrary, am not free. Perhaps, in view of LoveMonkey's reaction, it would ideally have been better for me to ask you or someone else to undo the vandalism, but when I saw the need to make that correction (which was not about the Eastern Orthodox Church, a topic that I have undertaken not to comment on, in the same way as LoveMonkey has undertaken to limit his comments on Roman Catholic teaching and practice), I did not at all advert to my offer of a long time ago to refrain from editing that article, an offer that, as I have here indicated, did not elicit a reciprocal promise from LoveMonkey. I just didn't think of that offer. Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that one way to get LoveMonkey to correct some of his claims is to mention them here on your talk page. Since I wrote the above, he has, with an edit summary referring to "typoes and grammar", corrected his classification of the Franks as Goths and altered his claim that "the Church of Rome arose under the school of Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin" into a claim that it is fact that the Church of Rome thus arose as a church based on Augustinian theology almost exclusively. It would be excellent if this method could work for all his mistaken edits and if it could work also for those that I think may be exclusion-violating ones. Esoglou (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey has stated in the article, as fact, that "These Frankish Popes where (LoveMonkey means "were", not "where") military leaders according to Saint Boniface known to 'shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans'." In a footnote, he quotes Romanides as saying: "many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, according to Saint Boniface, 'shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans'." It is only wishful thinking that makes LoveMonkey believe that Romanides was speaking of popes, not of other bishops. I have looked up what Saint Boniface actually wrote - not all that easy, since Romanides gives the source as "Migne, PL 89: 744", when the real source is column 745, not 744. Boniface is writing in the year 743 to the newly elected Pope Saint Zachary, who was a Greek, not a Frank, about an initiative by Marcoman, leader of the Franks, to get rid of abuses such as clergy, even bishops, "having four or five or more concubines in bed at night" and other bishops "who, although they deny that they are fornicators or adulterers, are drunkards, law-breakers, engage in hunting or, bearing weapons, fight in battles as part of an army and by their own hands shed human blood, whether of pagans or of Christians" ("qui, licet dicant se fornicarios vel adulteros non esse, sed sunt ebriosi, vel injuriosi, vel venatores, et qui pugnant in exercitu armati, et effundunt propria manu sanguinem hominum, sive paganorum, sive Christianorum"). Naturally, Pope Zachary responded granting the request of Marcoman and Boniface to have authority to hold a synod to remedy that situation, and ordered the deposition of any clergy whom Boniface found "... to have spilled the blood whether of Christians or of pagans or to have become subject to canonical sanction for other reasons" ("... aut si sanguinem Christianorum sive paganorum effuderunt, vel etiam aliis capitulum canonum obviasse eos reperit tua sanctitas" - the text is in column 919 of the same volume). It must have been wishful thinking on the part of Romanides too that made him interpret Boniface as saying that the battling bishops were "many".

If LoveMonkey is authorized to insert such material, am I allowed to respond in some way? Esoglou (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryoung122

Regarding the current discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I think a reminder to Ryoung122 about his topic ban ("is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Misplaced Pages process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted") may be needed. Due to User talk:Ryoung122#Arbitration enforcement it is obviously allowed for his to explain why his ban should not be made indefinite, but I do not see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#More comments from Ryoung122 (and elsewhere in the various confusing ongoing discussion threads) as actually doing that. Perhaps you could remind him to only discuss his proposed ban? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, thanks for clarify, O Fenian. It was David in DC and Itsmejudith that prompted me to come to the ArbCom. "Indefinite" is in some ways potentially worse than 1 year; it could be forever. Considering that the recent discussion was supposed to be about Nick Ornstein, I'm going to object to any additional punishment as "unfair" being as it was unsolicited and off-topic.Ryoung122 02:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out it out: A longevity page has an item removed by an IP editor. The item cited to a blog
VERY shortly thereafter, RYoung122 advises Nick about blogs as reliable sources.
My crap detector is tingling. What say ye? David in DC (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP 82.233.248.188 (talk · contribs) geolocates to France. He or she is also active on the longevity articles on the French Misplaced Pages, going back to February 2009. The diff that you cite above (removing a blog reference) seems legit. At least, the blog in question would need to be researched to see if it is under the newspaper's editorial control. If you think the IP is edit warring, let me know. Or, ask the IP for his reasoning. I did not notice anything unusual about the IP except that they never participate in discussions. Perhaps you could ask NickOrnstein what he thinks of the validity of the blog reference for Maria Richard that the IP removed. Anyway this is a 'work page' and it may not need the same standards as an article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. I'm not concerned with the deletion. I'm concerned with the advice to Nick, by RY, about blogs, less than half an hour later. David in DC (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In these diffs, Nick explains edits on longevity pages by saying that Robert Young is advising him about using blogs as reliable sources: , . David in DC (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing enough to take action on. Nick explained the situation in his edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note of reply

x2

Questions

-Ed, you are writing that changes to promote the same ethnicity are usually in bad faith but as you can see in my statement unlike my opponents I was promoting various nationalities. Even in the summary prepared by Sandstain you can see that I have added a German name into the Gdansk article. My name edits were in good faith. Are you going to take that into consideration while reaching your decision?

-Are you going to address the incivility issues directed at me by my opponents as well?

I'm also planing to ask on the noticeboard other uninvolved administrators to look at this particular case, can you wait with your desision for their opinion? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear how you could ask for other admins without it being perceived as canvassing or forum shopping. (You don't like the first answer, you would like a different one). WP:AE is the normal place where such disputes are heard, and there are currently enough admins there. Any uninvolved admin who is so inclined may participate. The outcome is most likely going to be a judgment call as to who is exceeding the bounds of common sense regarding the alternate languages. In my view, there needs to be a really good reason for a user who was previously sanctioned to get involved with alternate names. (It's the quintessential ethnic dispute). Staying on the talk pages would be much safer. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at AE

This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases - Ed, can you please explain to me why you are including me in this group? It appears you are doing so only because Sandstein included me there. But if you actually look at the list and read the comments, then you will notice that out of the six articles listed by Sandstein, two I've never edited in my life, and on the other four I made a single edit, sometimes long time ago (I have over 20k edits, I've even forgotten some of these) and when I was reverted, I ceased making any further edits.

There's no way that making a single edit on an article can be in any way construed as "edit warring" or anything else. I have also supported the inclusion of German names in Polish articles (within reason), and have added Lithuanian names to Polish articles as well as Yiddish and Hebrew names to Polish articles (like I said, I got over 20k edits and I'm not going to waste my time going back and looking for the odd diff or so, but they're there). I've consistently applied WP:NCGN policy, regardless of the places involved. Of course I've mostly edited Poland related articles - I don't speak Portuguese, Yoruba or Nahuatl! At no point have I edit warred and in fact I asked for third opinion and discussed things on talk, and am currently in process of working on naming conventions guideline in order to sort out this mess. Can you explain at all what would justify your proposal to sanction me?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1. You're listed for modifying alternate names on four articles, three of them recently (in 2011).
2. The alternate names for Bernardine Cemetery have been under dispute, since they've been reverted in both directions
3. Your edit summary seems to admit that your own edit does not have consensus.

Reverting because you claim that the other guy does not have consensus does not win you any points for being cooperative. I would consider recommending that editors not be sanctioned if it could be shown that their name-changes were made per an actual talk page consensus. The purpose of Sandstein's tabulation is to be sure that all editors who have warred over alternate names in Eastern Europe get an equal chance to have their behavior reviewed. The pro-Lithuanian editors will be looked at as well, since their names are in the table. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, so? Since when is this grounds for sanction?
2. Yes, so? You seem to be saying that making an even a single edit to an article that is controversial is sanctionable, even if that edit follows policy, simply because the article itself is controversial. It isn't - you can't sanction people simply because they happen to edit controversial articles. In case you haven't noticed, I'm actually the one who build that article to a large extent, so it's not surprising that I'd edit it .
3. I have no idea how you get your conclusion from the edit summary. My summary clearly states that the talk page discussion supported the edit: the talk page discussion pointed the other way (i.e. for inclusion).

Reverting because you claim that the other guy does not have consensus does not win you any points for being cooperative. - where have I done this? Or are you just contradicting yourself with what you said in #3?

their name-changes were made "per an actual talk page consensus" - no, the name changes made by Jacurek where made per WP:NCGN, which represents Misplaced Pages wide consensus. The fact that a couple of editors insist on ignoring Misplaced Pages policies and are holding consensus hostage on individual talk pages is neither Jacurek's fault, nor mine.

The pro-Lithuanian editors will be looked at as well, since their names are in the table - I'm not asking about them, I'm asking why am I being included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been a recent upsurge in reverting of alternate names in Eastern Europe. You are one of the people doing the reverting. How do you propose that the matter be resolved? EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is/was ALREADY being resolved, which is why this whole AE report by FP@S was such a bad and counter productive idea to begin with. See , (please do note my last comment there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And I am *not* "one of the people doing the reverting" thank you very much. Single reverts to 3 articles, combined with me completely ceasing to edit an article after *I* get reverted is not "reverting"Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I ask something very similar here. In particular, I would really like to see a rationale under which a user with no current sanctions can be sanctioned for adhering to 1RR and BRD. The last I checked, the definition of "edit warring" involved making more than one revert to the page in question... ("editors... repeatedly overrideeach other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion"). VM was neither reverting repeatedly, nor was he ignoring the talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)