| Revision as of 01:52, 5 April 2015 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,202 edits →Yozer1 and his battleground attitude: Add userlinks← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:05, 5 April 2015 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,202 edits →Yozer1 and his battleground attitude: Now blockedNext edit → | ||
| Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
| ::After waiting 24 hours, it appears Yozer1 is only capable of and continuing his snide childish remarks("You are not playing by the rules either Yogi Bear."), therefore I have his ]. Judging by the kid gloves being used to ] Yozer1, when will it be, in your eyes, necessary to treat this situation as the disruptive, harassing, ] that Yozer1 continues to exhibit? --] (]) 01:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | ::After waiting 24 hours, it appears Yozer1 is only capable of and continuing his snide childish remarks("You are not playing by the rules either Yogi Bear."), therefore I have his ]. Judging by the kid gloves being used to ] Yozer1, when will it be, in your eyes, necessary to treat this situation as the disruptive, harassing, ] that Yozer1 continues to exhibit? --] (]) 01:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::Now that we've heard his disappointing response, I went ahead with a one year AE block. ] (]) 02:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == re: Result of your edit warring complaint == | == re: Result of your edit warring complaint == | ||
Revision as of 02:05, 5 April 2015
Talkback
Message added 05:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Swarm 05:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- User:Swarm, I've read the post you left on your talk for User:Tgeairn. I agree with your opinion there. There is a clear 3RR violation on the other user's talk page, and I'm not sure that the linked page of diffs proves much in any direction. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! Swarm 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Hendrick_99
You might want to take a look at User:Hendrick_99's recent edits. While these aren't pages I follow I stumbled onto this on the page you move protected. User is making many rapid page moves/merges/redirects in a short period of time with little discussion. Raises warning flags to me. I suspect someone will end up having quite a bit of work to do sorting it all out. Red Harvest (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- It might be coincidence, but when another editor noticed the Shanghai IP Address of some supporting edits (not logged in/or sockpuppet, take your pick or flip a coin), and I started noting the large volume of undiscussed page moves, all activity stopped on this account. I'm not inclined to consider this coincidence and figure it is appropriate to do mass page move reverts to correct the damage. Any comments? Red Harvest (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
belated reply
re this: I don't recall ever finding any of your actions objectionable, and fully admit that you likely have a much better handle the big picture. That said, if there's something you feel would help make things better, you won't get any objections from me. — Ched : ? 02:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Action?
Re Reinstating the invalidly-lifted block would not be wheel-warring, given , what are you waiting for? NE Ent 20:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer a low-drama lifestyle. There are about 1,500 other admins who could take care of it, if they feel that the moment has arrived. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject History Merge
Given your regular activity at WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen, I have added your name to the list of participants at WP:WikiProject History Merge, partly to keep the list from being empty. You are, of course, free to remove your name, if you so wish! Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Request
I noticed your response to that 3RR thread about the Crimea annexation article. I originally replied, and requested that you might consider watching the page. However, I think that I have a better idea, if you are willing. The page is a lighting rod for these kinds of disputes. I've done my fair share of reverting, no doubt. However, the constant instability and cycle of edit-warring is not productive. Full protection may temporarily solve the problem, but one must remember that we have WP:ARBEE at our disposal. ARBEE allows the imposition of 1RR on articles by uninvolved administrators. I believe that 1RR on this page would be a much better solution to the current problem, which spans beyond one editor, and includes myself. Frankly, all the editors that are working on the article, including myself, need to be constrained. Tensions are often high, and the result is that edit-warring feels easier than resolving a dispute that does not seem resolvable on the talk page. I've seen how well 1RR has worked in ISIL/Syria articles. Please consider imposing page-level 1RR at this page, and then unprotecting it. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think there is only one editor (reported for 3RR violation) who behave improperly on this page right now. Making this page very difficult to edit for everyone else because of the single troublemaker would not be an optimal solution in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think we all reverted too much, myself included. It is too disruptive. The best way to curtail edit-warring is to only allow one revert per person per twenty-four hours. He certainly isn't the only trouble maker. Given the nature of this article, none of us should be making contentious changes and edit-warring over them. We should be discussing first. RGloucester — ☎ 18:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- 1RR is an option to consider, though I wouldn't enact it now. A 1RR can limit abuse though it makes it harder for people to do real article work. I'm glad to see a discussion on the talk page of the protected article. When protection expires, it seems to me that bringing reports to WP:AN3 might be enough to keep edit warring in check. If you believe the problem is across multiple articles, it could be worth your time to open one or more RfCs. If admins notice that someone is reverting against the result of an RfC it is much easier to consider blocks or bans. If you have changes to want to make to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation while it is protected, don't forget WP:Request edit. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. However, with all due respect, I believe that admins must be more proactive by topic banning the most obvious troublemakers, one at a time. For example, there is someone who just made a blatant 3RR violation , responded with contempt , tried to justify his edit warring , claimed again the cabal , just as in the previous WP:AE report and later , and blamed others of lies . What else is possibly needed for action? My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The protection of this article gives a window of opportunity for User:Haberstr to show how he can work more neutrally in this topic area. If he can't do so, the window may close. But in the meantime, if the other people who were arguing with him about Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation do nothing useful on the talk page, they too will have missed an opportunity. If one side is truly behaving much better than the other, let's see the evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if anyone wants to submit an WP:AE request, that's fine. However, this will not be me. I have had enough. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The protection of this article gives a window of opportunity for User:Haberstr to show how he can work more neutrally in this topic area. If he can't do so, the window may close. But in the meantime, if the other people who were arguing with him about Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation do nothing useful on the talk page, they too will have missed an opportunity. If one side is truly behaving much better than the other, let's see the evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. However, with all due respect, I believe that admins must be more proactive by topic banning the most obvious troublemakers, one at a time. For example, there is someone who just made a blatant 3RR violation , responded with contempt , tried to justify his edit warring , claimed again the cabal , just as in the previous WP:AE report and later , and blamed others of lies . What else is possibly needed for action? My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1RR is an option to consider, though I wouldn't enact it now. A 1RR can limit abuse though it makes it harder for people to do real article work. I'm glad to see a discussion on the talk page of the protected article. When protection expires, it seems to me that bringing reports to WP:AN3 might be enough to keep edit warring in check. If you believe the problem is across multiple articles, it could be worth your time to open one or more RfCs. If admins notice that someone is reverting against the result of an RfC it is much easier to consider blocks or bans. If you have changes to want to make to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation while it is protected, don't forget WP:Request edit. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think we all reverted too much, myself included. It is too disruptive. The best way to curtail edit-warring is to only allow one revert per person per twenty-four hours. He certainly isn't the only trouble maker. Given the nature of this article, none of us should be making contentious changes and edit-warring over them. We should be discussing first. RGloucester — ☎ 18:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ed, you have not notified me that you are having an discussion about me that could have extremely serious consequences for me with two of the most severe POV editors. I note that this is partly the fault of Gloucester, who carefully designed his request to exclude my name. In any case, please notify me of such discussions speedily.
If i were informed, I could have immediately directed you to the Annexation talk page, where I have politely and in good faith made two new requests for revisions and been met by RGloucester with what appears to be bad faith and a uniform inability to concede even the slightest change to the current clumsy POV lead and the current Crimean public opinion section . The clumsy lead also does not conform to Misplaced Pages policy on leads, which states that we should put the article title in bold in the first sentence, when this can be done smoothly. For no explained reason he opposes that. In fact, he concedes exactly zero. For example, he doesn't even concede that, in context, "Since ..." is preferred to "From the time of..." An even more innocuous suggested revision to the Crimean public opinion sub-section (you can understand what I mean by innocuous by looking at the two versions) is also met with uniform disdain by RGloucester and the other usual suspects, and no rational explanation for opposition to the proposed revision. Most important, note the virulent negativity of the response to my suggestions and note my calm and polite Wikipedian response. Here is Gloucester on the lead: Your proposed lead is no good. It is clumsy, it isn't fluent, and it does not make sense. (He doesn't explain what doesn't make sense, nor what is clumsy, non-fluent, or no good.) ... The annexation was a series of events, not one event. It was merely finished on the 18th of March 2014. (I inform Gloucester that both versions of the lead state that the annexation took place on March 18, 2014, so that his/her criticism is either bad faith or nonsensical.) your proposed version tries to hide the fact that Crimea is and was a part of Ukraine. (I point out in response that my version states in the first sentence: "although the territory under international law continues to be an autonomous republic of Ukraine"). Here is Gloucester on the Crimean public opinion suggested revision: Same old PoV pushing by Haberstr. Polls require context. Taking statistics out of context is a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty and PoV pushing. That's what you propose to do. (I ask Gloucester to withdraw his accusation of intellectual dishonesty but he does not. I also point out that all RS reporting (I cite 5 reports from the 2012 election campaign) puts the results first and adds the context afterward. It's a major disservice to Misplaced Pages readers not to do it that way. Gloucester makes no response to this argument.) ... Your "proposed" section is an attempt at PoV pushing. (I respond by stating the obvious, that my revision merely rearranges material and doesn't push any POV other than the one that readers coming to the section should be provided what they want to know as quickly as possible within reason. Please also note the scare quotes on "proposed." Gloucester is apparently suggesting that my proposed revision is being made in bad faith.
Other editors are rude, jump to accusations, and assume bad faith during the two latest discussions. For example, here is Kudzu1's succinct response to my proposed revision of 'Crimean public opinion': POV-pushing is seemingly all this tendentious editor does, and this "proposal" is no different. I see no reason to discuss it any further. (Note that Kudzu offers no example of POV pushing, and no argument for why my rearrangement of the information becomes POV-pushing. Also note the repetition of the theme started by Gloucester: scare quotes on "proposal," which indicates he believes my suggested revisions are being made in bad faith. Here is Volunteer Marek's response to, let's be real here, the innocuous suggested change to the 'Crimean public opinion' sub-section: Please stop engaging in POINTY behavior. Please stop trying to GAME the rules. Please stop wasting our time. Enough is enough. (These are very serious charges, and they are commonly made against me on the talk page and in revision comments. But Volunteer and his like-minded editors (the ones he refers to as "our") never offer evidence that I am attempting to "disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point." He and they never offer evidence that I am "Gaming the system."
But, so it goes. What do you think I should do?Haberstr (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think you should drop the stick. I've given numerous reasons for why I oppose the changes. If you can't WP:HEAR what I'm saying, that's not my fault. In fact, I believe Volunteer Marek put it best when he said of the present lead sentence: "Boom. Short, to the point, statement of fact, nothing confusing here". My good faith ran out long before this present spat, and I'm perfectly content to admit that. Disruptive non-consensus page moves, repeating the same thing in numerous new talk page sections, accusing editors of being part of a cabal, slapping PoV tags all over the place for no apparent reason. How many editors will it take to tell you that you are not accomplishing anything, only causing disruption? You can try and appear civil all you like, try and weasel out how all the editors that oppose you are part of a anti-Russian cabal that's out to get you and destroy NPOV, but any outsider observer will see that that's not the case. Please stop, and find something more productive to do. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- RGloucester , please inform me the next time you have a discussion with an administrator in which you attack me and try to get sanctions put on me. As for your WP links: Drop the stick indicates there was a debate on my suggested revisions. Of course, as EdJohnston will see if he observes the talk page, there was no debate at all, just an immediate and unified attack on all fronts, conceding nothing, not even the most innocuous and minor changes. As for WP:HEAR, I do hear you, and what I hear is that a group of POV editors wants to harass a NPOV editor out of revising the Annexation article. I'm sure many other editors have heard the same thing in the past.Haberstr (talk)
- I did not request that any sanctions be applied to you. I asked that the page be put under 1RR, which would apply to all editors, myself included. Why should anyone concede to changes that make the article worse? If your changes were good, there wouldn't be an issue. They are not. We're not going to make the encylopaedia worse for your sake. RGloucester — ☎ 13:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Haberstr. Perhaps you do not realize it, but RGloucester is your best ally in these disputes. Just follow his advice, and everything will be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I did not request that any sanctions be applied to you. I asked that the page be put under 1RR, which would apply to all editors, myself included. Why should anyone concede to changes that make the article worse? If your changes were good, there wouldn't be an issue. They are not. We're not going to make the encylopaedia worse for your sake. RGloucester — ☎ 13:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- RGloucester , please inform me the next time you have a discussion with an administrator in which you attack me and try to get sanctions put on me. As for your WP links: Drop the stick indicates there was a debate on my suggested revisions. Of course, as EdJohnston will see if he observes the talk page, there was no debate at all, just an immediate and unified attack on all fronts, conceding nothing, not even the most innocuous and minor changes. As for WP:HEAR, I do hear you, and what I hear is that a group of POV editors wants to harass a NPOV editor out of revising the Annexation article. I'm sure many other editors have heard the same thing in the past.Haberstr (talk)
- I must agree with RGloucester and disagree about "missing chances". WP is not a democracy and not a place where a majority of contributors must agree and compromise with a single editor who acts against consensus. Same can be probably said about Collect, even if his edits were mostly reasonable. And no, there is no "anti-Russia" side here. For example, I said above about Haberstr: "who just made a blatant 3RR violation , responded with contempt , tried to justify his edit warring , claimed again the cabal , just as in the previous WP:AE report and later , and blamed others of lies ". Did I say "pro-Russia" or "anti-Russia" anywhere? No. But my time is up. My very best wishes (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think you should drop the stick. I've given numerous reasons for why I oppose the changes. If you can't WP:HEAR what I'm saying, that's not my fault. In fact, I believe Volunteer Marek put it best when he said of the present lead sentence: "Boom. Short, to the point, statement of fact, nothing confusing here". My good faith ran out long before this present spat, and I'm perfectly content to admit that. Disruptive non-consensus page moves, repeating the same thing in numerous new talk page sections, accusing editors of being part of a cabal, slapping PoV tags all over the place for no apparent reason. How many editors will it take to tell you that you are not accomplishing anything, only causing disruption? You can try and appear civil all you like, try and weasel out how all the editors that oppose you are part of a anti-Russian cabal that's out to get you and destroy NPOV, but any outsider observer will see that that's not the case. Please stop, and find something more productive to do. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| For responding quickly and effectively to two tedious requests for administrative attention to edit-wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
Big mistake
Ed, please do not follow the advise of Magog. Occupied territories are not Israeli, and there is nothing wrong in pointing out that they are occupied. Please do not remove my capabilities to do those kinds of edits.
I know I have done many reverts, but the majority of them are of socks. And I am willing to go under a 1 revert per week restriction if you want but I don't believe even that is needed, but I can accept that if you want. And I promise that I will discuss more at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Request for reinstating indefinite topic ban on User:Ohconfucius
- Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Greetings, Ed. I'd like to bring to your attention some edits by User:Ohconfucius, who was previously indefinitely topic banned from Falun Gong-related page. I believe his behavior warrants reinstating that ban, which was provisionally lifted last year (subject to some conditions).
In addition to several POV edits, a 3RR violation, and general inability to work constructively with other editors on these pages (details below), Ohconfucius has also reinstated an anti-Falun Gong personal essay in his user space against the explicit instructions of a member of the arbitration committee. This essay is wholly inappropriate, and insofar as it contains attacks against named individuals, groups, and specific Misplaced Pages editors, it also appears to violate several policies and guidelines including WP:ATTACK, WP:HARASS, and WP:POLEMIC.
Let me first remind you of the background. In July 2012, Arbcom voted to indefinitely ban OhConfucius from Falun Gong-related topics due to repeated edit warring, incivility, and violations of WP:NPOV (e.g. edits that misrepresented the positions of reliable sources). The direction of his edits was generally to improve the image of the Chinese government.
In April 2014, Ohconfucius appealed to lift the topic ban. He assured the arbitrators that he would not return to editing Falun Gong, but said he only wanted to restore his good name.
Seven arbitrators agreed to provisionally lift the ban with a probationary period of one year, stating that any admin could re-impose the indefinite topic ban if Ohconfucius again ran afoul of policy. One arbitrator added that his agreement was conditional and asked Ohconfucius to "steer well clear of matters of controversy" related to Falun Gong.
Within two weeks, Ohconfucius reneged on his promises to Arbcom and returned to making controversial edits to Falun Gong-related articles.
He was brought back to Arbcom. The arbitrators again warned him again to apply caution. One arb asked him to "move on" from editing Falun Gong, and another (Seraphimblade) told him that he must permanently delete all of the anti-Falun Gong essays that he kept in his userspace or else he (the arbitrator) would request reinstatement of the indefinite topic ban.
Ohconfucius again deceived the arbitration committee. He deleted the offending essays in his userspace, but soon after the ArbCom case was closed, he simply reposted a permalinked, older version on his user page, where it remains. This only recently came to my attention.
He has also made several more edits that appear to violate WP:NPOV, some of which very closely resemble the edits he was initially banned for. Most of these edits involve deleting reliably sourced information on the Chinese government's human rights abuses, claiming material is not supported by sources when it actually is, and otherwise misrepresenting the sources. I can provide more details if needed on why these edits are problematic, if it's not obvious otherwise.
Ohconfucius also violated the 3RR in a two-hour period on a Falun Gong-related topic Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. The other editor involved tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but Ohconfucius opted not to discuss.
These were the edits where he violated the 3RR:
Revert 1:
– Misstates facts about the history and mandate of the 610 Office. User:TheBlueCanoe then did a partial revert and explained why on the talk page. – Ohconfucius reverts without discussing (apparently convinced that he's right on points of facts. He's not.)
Revert 2:
(at bottom of diff) – deletes information about the Chinese government's propaganda initiative because it was unsourced. – a source was added, he deletes it again (bottom of diff).
Revert 3: – deletes information that casts doubt on the Chinese government's narrative – deletes again
Revert 4:
– adds quote from Chinese government and omits Ownby views – repeat
Revert 5:
– deletes information about Mr. Tan in Chengde (he's actually right about this one, but a revert is a revert) – deletes again
Finally, his conduct toward other editors doesn't seem to have improved. This talk page discussion is quite illuminating:
Best regards. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello TheSoundAndTheFury. You're concerned about recent edits by User:Ohconfucius. Consider reporting this at WP:Arbitration enforcement. If you do so, I recommend shortening your statement. I have to notice that many of these diffs are from 2014. You have argued that User:Ohconfucius broke 3RR in September, 2014 but I only see three reverts there. I agree that Ohconfucius sometimes leaves intemperate edit summaries. If it were up to me, I wouldn't do a topic ban, though some kind of warning might be justified. Some people claim he is pro-PRC, but my own review suggests he is more anti-Falun Gong, and he labels some of his opponents as 'FLG editors' when they may not be. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I like your response, Ed. Yes, this is mostly rather old news, which makes it a little puzzling. When it came up before, I chatted with OC about his attitude to the topic, and noted that he felt perplexed as to the interpretation by some editors of that attitude: to him, there was unexplained tendency to frame him as being biased on either one side or the other, with precious little evidence. My own understanding from our conversations was that he's keen to seek balance between the pretty emotional arguments that sometimes engulf this topic. Tony (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed. I left off a couple of the reverts. There were two more, which I've added above. Had a 3RR complaint been filed in a timely manner, this presumably would have resulted in a block. And per the terms of OhConfucius' parole period, any block in this topic area would automatically result in the restoration of the indefinite topic ban. See clerk's note here.
- I like your response, Ed. Yes, this is mostly rather old news, which makes it a little puzzling. When it came up before, I chatted with OC about his attitude to the topic, and noted that he felt perplexed as to the interpretation by some editors of that attitude: to him, there was unexplained tendency to frame him as being biased on either one side or the other, with precious little evidence. My own understanding from our conversations was that he's keen to seek balance between the pretty emotional arguments that sometimes engulf this topic. Tony (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy to go to AE if necessary, but brought this directly to you because a) the terms of his "parole" say that any administrator can reinstate the ban if Ohconfucius again runs afoul of policy (presumably without going to AE, unless I've misread), and b) the one year mark of his parole period is ending soon. I think there should be some kind of review of his behavior before he is let off, hence the diffs from 2014. Also, see these words by @Seraphimblade: "If Ohconfucius' pattern of commenting on editors rather than edits continues or speculating on their motives, I'll be in favor of reinstating the topic ban. In that vein, I will be requesting reinstatement of the topic ban if you do not get rid of all of your userspace material on Falun Gong and leave it gone."
- I also only recently noticed the restoration of the userspace essay in which Ohconfucius makes personal attacks against myself and several other editors (among other things). Restoring a polemical attack essay after being told to remove it (on two occasions, by two members of the arbitration committee) seems like an actionable offense. This edit was from just a few hours ago:
- I may ask some other arbs who instituted his one-year probation about how we may go about evaluating this and the user's other contributions to this topic space over the last year. Maybe it is AE. Either way, appreciated your input. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I still disagree with your claim that he violated 3RR in September. Your counting is off. A string of successive edits counts as no more than one revert. Here is the listing of everyone's edits on September 9 and 10 at Tiananmen square self-immolation incident:
- I may ask some other arbs who instituted his one-year probation about how we may go about evaluating this and the user's other contributions to this topic space over the last year. Maybe it is AE. Either way, appreciated your input. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- 21:54, 10 September 2014 Zujine (t | c) . . (+836) (+836) . . (Per talk page. I'm restoring info to lede, resolving a historical anachronism, and adding sources for previously removed detail.)
- 05:28, 10 September 2014 BG19bot (t . c) m . . (+2) (+2) . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Section heading problem. Violates WP:MOSHEAD.) (×)
- 07:27, 9 September 2014 Ohconfucius (t . c) . . (-1408) (+2) . .
- 03:21, 9 September 2014 TheBlueCanoe (t . c) . . (+743) (+743) . . (Restoring some info to lead, restoring deleted info and resolving NPOV and factual issues (see talk))
- 03:15, 9 September 2014 Ohconfucius (t . c) . . (+376) (-19) . .
- 02:51, 9 September 2014 TheBlueCanoe (t . c | block) . . (+100) (+100) . . (partial revert. Not the place to be propagandizing on behalf of the PRC government. Also adding source for deleted info.)
- 02:45, 9 September 2014 Ohconfucius (t . c) . . (-2202) (-1)
- The above listing combines groups of successive edits. Since there are only three groups of edits by OhC on September 9, he made at most three reverts per the language of WP:EW. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to violate WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- As someone who has not been involved in that content for some time, having recused myself from it, I have to say that based on my memory there were serious questions expressed regarding not only Ohconfucius, but other editors involved as well, and that, although I as I said have recused myself from that content, I believe it has rather degenerated into being more one-sided than it had been earlier. This raises questions at least in my eyes, about this being an attempt to "win through sanctions" in a content dispute, and I would suggest, possibly, that if the request here is found to itself be dubiously supported, that perhaps the requester be at least advised to not engage in perhaps dubious attempts to perhaps intimidate others, if not, in fact, to try to get a "win" through litigiousness. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ed, I hadn't realized that multiple reverts performed consecutively – with no intervening edits – count as a single revert. I was just looking at the fact that he reverted different material each time. I'll be sure to characterize it properly going forward. Thanks again. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Acknowledgment source of Mufaddal Saifuddin
You previously wrote "See my previous message where I explained how you can appeal. Your ideas for reaching neutrality, while they might seem like common sense to you, are not how it is understood on Misplaced Pages. We go by what the reliable sources write. Your theory that the article should basically be written by the Dawoodi Bohra is nothing like our policy. See Misplaced Pages:List of policies#Content. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)"
- I have repeatedly used reliable sources and repeatedly pointed out that current sources are not reliable as per Wiki requirements. My sources included the Indian Prime Minister. Is that not reliable? I now give you the verifiable, reliable source that reports widespread 'acknowledgement' of Mufaddal Saifuddin as Syedna (leader of the Dawoodi Bohras) - as I had edited and you placed the ban as a result. This was not a 'declaration of a winner'. It should be quite sufficient now for the repeal of the ban you imposed.
Please also note that at no point have I stated I am a Dawoodi Bohra or not or whether I have any allegiance in this matter or not. Nor should I be required to and nor should it be assumed of me.Noughtnotout (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The link you provided to this newspaper article suggests that a court will begin to consider the succession on April 27. I suggest that we wait and see how that comes out. The Indian Prime Minister can only be accepted as a source for his own opinion. The 'widespread acknowledgment' you claim is only an assertion in the affidavit of one of the parties in the court case. This can't be taken as a dispassionate third-party assessment of the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Indian Prime Minister is giving 'his opinion' in his official capacity as the Indian Prime Minister - on the web site of the Indian Prime Minister. That is quite a substantial endorsement. The acknowledgment of Mufaddal as 'Syedna' is now in several papers that refer to him as Syedna. How the court case goes in April does not change the acknowledgment (widespread or not) of him as Syedna today although it might do after the case is concluded and the Misplaced Pages entry can be amended to reflect that if that were to happen. All in all the fact remains that there is acknowledgment of him as a Syedna here(http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/others/US-court-gives-custody-of-Syedna-Saifuddins-grandkids-to-the-fathers/articleshow/46658075.cms) here (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Late-Syednas-grandchildren-custody-row-Bohras-split-over-US-court-order/articleshow/46668508.cms) here (to name just a few) (http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/syedna-row-hc-restricts-entry-of-bohra-muslims-for-hearing/article7007774.ece and that's really all that my edit said. The Hindu actually states 'plaintiff Khuzaima' and 'incumbent Syedna' as Mufaddal Saifuddi'. I don't see what waiting for the court case has to do with allowing me to continue editing given that I have substantiated that there is acknowledgment.Noughtnotout (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you wish to appeal your ban from the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra, see the advice that I previously left for you at User talk:Noughtnotout#Topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. Until your ban is lifted, you should not be discussing the Dawoodi Bohra anywhere on Misplaced Pages. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Indian Prime Minister is giving 'his opinion' in his official capacity as the Indian Prime Minister - on the web site of the Indian Prime Minister. That is quite a substantial endorsement. The acknowledgment of Mufaddal as 'Syedna' is now in several papers that refer to him as Syedna. How the court case goes in April does not change the acknowledgment (widespread or not) of him as Syedna today although it might do after the case is concluded and the Misplaced Pages entry can be amended to reflect that if that were to happen. All in all the fact remains that there is acknowledgment of him as a Syedna here(http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/others/US-court-gives-custody-of-Syedna-Saifuddins-grandkids-to-the-fathers/articleshow/46658075.cms) here (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Late-Syednas-grandchildren-custody-row-Bohras-split-over-US-court-order/articleshow/46668508.cms) here (to name just a few) (http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/syedna-row-hc-restricts-entry-of-bohra-muslims-for-hearing/article7007774.ece and that's really all that my edit said. The Hindu actually states 'plaintiff Khuzaima' and 'incumbent Syedna' as Mufaddal Saifuddi'. I don't see what waiting for the court case has to do with allowing me to continue editing given that I have substantiated that there is acknowledgment.Noughtnotout (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Niki Romijn??
Hi, i really don't know why you delete articel Niki Romijn. I say where i have found her birth dat and place and there is no reason for deleting why do you deletit? And it's translate of Dutch wiki that i say it. But i don't know how do it template of thar say it translate. Can you say it.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Maxie1ho. Please read WP:BLPPROD for why the article on Niki Romijn was deleted. The article contained no reference to what Misplaced Pages considers a WP:reliable source. Even if we accept that www.nikiromijn.nl is a website over which she has control, it does not count as a reliable source. And no version of Misplaced Pages, English or Dutch, is accepted as a valid source for any statements in the article. Surely she must have received coverage in books or newspapers or by edited websites that are accepted as reliable here. If you can find such references, the article can be recreated. If you want the text of the article back, I can send it by email. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Question
Hi. Just read this. Can someone rv the disputed edit. I don't want to be seen as violating 3RR. Thanks. Quis separabit? 18:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I did it myself and used the discussion here as the reasoning. Quis separabit? 22:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yozer1 and his battleground attitude
- Yozer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Per this statement by Yozer1, I believe this is a gross violation of his restrictions concerning Misplaced Pages:AA2, per "5) Misplaced Pages is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable."
- "Hello Bear, I suggest you take your Armenian tendencies elsewhere, like to another site. -Yozer1 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)".
Considering that Yozer1 has continued to violate his AA2 sanctions, I see no reason why he should not be blocked, again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have left a note for User:Yozer1. Let's see if he will cooperate. He did recently make an effort to fix things. He self-reverted his 20 March edit at Talk:Defense of Van (1915) after I complained about his ban violation at User talk:Yozer1#Your comment at Talk:Defense of Van (1915). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- After waiting 24 hours, it appears Yozer1 is only capable of removing remarks made by others and continuing his snide childish remarks("You are not playing by the rules either Yogi Bear."), therefore I have removed his racist whining. Judging by the kid gloves being used to pamper Yozer1, when will it be, in your eyes, necessary to treat this situation as the disruptive, harassing, personal vendetta that Yozer1 continues to exhibit? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Now that we've heard his disappointing response, I went ahead with a one year AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- After waiting 24 hours, it appears Yozer1 is only capable of removing remarks made by others and continuing his snide childish remarks("You are not playing by the rules either Yogi Bear."), therefore I have removed his racist whining. Judging by the kid gloves being used to pamper Yozer1, when will it be, in your eyes, necessary to treat this situation as the disruptive, harassing, personal vendetta that Yozer1 continues to exhibit? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
re: Result of your edit warring complaint
Thank you for your time. In future, I'll be more patient about these subjects and I'll contact you if I have any further questions. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sanction formality
Given Jehochman's recommendation and assuming you are uninvolved, I think it would help if you were to add your signature to the ANI archive box and Ret.Prof's user talk page endorsing what Guy has said, if you agree with the sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I endorse your entry of this ban in WP:RESTRICT but prefer not to modify the existing archive box at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Bosnian dispute
This thread is for any post-closure discussion after a recent AN3 complaint. I've copied the post-closure comments so far. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yerevani Axjik has not stopped with their nationalistic edits. Yerevani Axjik has continued vandalizing several Bosnia-Herzegovina-related articles with Serbian Cyrillic, and Serbian this and Serbian that, removing any mention of Bosnian anything. After the edits of Yerevani Axjik, the Bosnian language has been replaced with "Serbo-Croatian" (example: edits on Drvar), which has not been in use since the Yugoslav-era.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:Sabahudin9, you are on thin ice. I recommend you find an appropriate venue to have a proper discussion of which language template should be used. At the moment, you're the person who appears to most susceptible to nationalist editing. If you can't find a way to reach agreement on the language templates, I recommend that you work on something else. Many Slavic people in the Balkans speak a language that is often referred to as Serbo-Croation. See Talk:Serbo-Croatian and its archives for all the past disputes. The following appears in the page header at Talk:Serbo-Croatian:
In English, the language spoken by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Misplaced Pages.
- Re-opening the discussion about Serbo-Croatian every ten minutes is not a welcome development. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Yerevani Axjik's edits on Vasilije Kačavenda removed all reference to the subjects nationalist ties and replaced "underage boys" with "men" when referring to subjects recent sex abuse scandal, which is factually inaccurate, as supported by multiple sources. The user also added a poorly sourced addition to the article Osman Karabegović which claims the subject was a supporter of nationalist leader Slobodan Milošević. User has also continued adding Serbian Cyrillic translations to many towns and cities within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina including on Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč. User has also replaced the ethnic term "Bosniaks" with the Yugoslav-era "Muslims", a highly offensive and dated term. I don't understand why I am the one being vilified here for simply reverting this users nonconstructive edits ? Apparently the Bosniak Avdo Humo is now a Serb, according to User:Yerevani Axjik. --Sabahudin9 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not one article mentions that Kačavenda abused underaged children, but only that he had sex with number of adult men. You or someone else misused the sources. Give me one source (link) that was used which claims he had sex with underaged boys. And the term Muslim is not offensive at all, it's your own personal view. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
one, two, three, four, five. These are just five sources, all Serbian, but there are many more if you need them to prove that this man is a nationalist and a pedophile.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- And none of them was used in the article, right? :) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
COI-related article nominated for deletion
Hi Ed,
There is a new essay on the subject of COI that I recently nominated for deletion. There is a lot of back and forth going on as you might imagine, and I thought it might be helpful to ask some editors with a historical interest in the area to give their input.
Just to be clear, you are not being canvassed based on my perceptions of what your views are. I am asking for input from the top 10 contributors to the COI Noticeboard, expecting that some expertise and interest might be found here.
Thanks in advance for your input, if you feel able and willing to participate. Formerly 98 22:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)