User talk:EdJohnston

Questions about LM/E editing restrictions

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 Wikipedia 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)

Phatius McBluff has replied, telling me I should contact an administrator. That I have done here. LoveMonkey is continuing to edit the articles that contain contentious material, but most recently in a not really objectionable way. I have thought it best, for now, not to respond to any of his actions. Esoglou (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have renamed this section 'Request for guidance', to be 'Questions about LM/E editing restrictions.' Left a note at User talk:LoveMonkey#Editing at East-West Schism. I asked him to revise his text at East-West Schism to clarify he was only adding an opinion by John Romanides (an EO scholar) and not factual information about the Western Church. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I attributed the information to John Romanides. The edit shows that. If you don't like the wording "according to John Romanides" please provide me with what wording will satisfy the pointed out requirement. Please don't focus on an Eastern Orthodox scholar here on Wikipedia in a way that will make it look like that Orthodox scholars' work is being treated differently than other "scholars" on here. It is and I have stated time and time again, more and more obvious that Esoglou wishes to censure Eastern Orthodox theologians and or discredit them. I would hope that Ed as a Wikipedia administrator would not want to have it so every time I add an Orthodox theologians opinion (let alone one like Romanides whom taught at Yale) that Orthodox theologian is to be noted as somehow "different" or indirectly marginalized because Esoglou is more important than Romanides or any of the other Orthodox theologians (i.e. Lossky, Nellas) that Esoglou has attacked here with his WP:OR. As using "according to" is right now how the article stands regardless of which side a given scholar may represent. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are technically in violation of your editing restriction. If you can't think of any rewording that pleases you, I suggest that you remove the entire section (containing Romanides' opinions) and ask on the article talk page for how it should be phrased. If you leave the text unmodified in the article, you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide wording that you find acceptable for me to modify the edit to. If not where can I open a report to get this addressed to someone above you. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How about putting 'Romanides states that..' in front of

It was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors that the Church of Rome arose, under the Palatine School established by Saxon Alcuin (735-804) as a church based on Augustinian theology almost exclusively.[30]

I am also surprised by the very large direct quotes of Romanides in footnotes 26 and 30. The first of these is over 700 words. Though I suppose it doesn't violate any editing restriction, it may be stretching the copyright rules. According to the web site which hosts his material, Romanides' text is under copyright. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Where can I file a formal complaint about this kind of stuff Ed. As this is what is driving me and other editors away from Wikipedia..No matter what I post I just can't seem to not violate some policy. As I posted that much of the article just so Esoglou would not complain that it was not sourced or that what I posted was not found in the source. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou has engaged in a long and protracted edit war with some of the articles I edit. Esoglou has a long history of edit warring with other editors on other articles not just with me. Heres another small example [1] One of the things Esoglou is allowed to do on Wikipedia which is disruptive to other editors and no administrator will address is that Esoglou like to invalid ones sourcing by claiming that what was posted is not reflected in the source or sources given. Esoglou likes to engage in source tag abuse. [2] Here is just one example [3]. The length of the sourced material was to keep Esoglou from complaining about but even with this much of the source in the article Esoglou complained anyway.

"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"."[4]

So what is it? Does the source I provided not cover the information I posted? Is it enough? How much of it is enough? Is it a copyright vio? If so how can I put the information in the article and stop Esoglou's complaints that obviously get peoples attention and suck up all my time on here. How much is needed so that Esoglou's privileged status on Wikipedia finally gets put in check? As if I copy the information word for word it is a copyright vio but if I put the entire section of the source for which my contribution is a summary showing that I can attribute the information to the source then I have added to much of the source and that too is a copyright vio. Which is it and when can a balance be enforced on Esoglou? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

LM asked me to comment here. First, about the specific sentence. one point first: a/c ODNB, Alcuin was not a Saxon. Our article calls him "English"; if one wishes to be moire specific, he was from Northumbria--which was an kingdom of the Angles, not the Saxons, and he had family connections with Anglian nobility. I suggest the following. "The Eastern Orthodox theologian Romanides states that it was not until the rise of Charlemagne and his successors, and the influence of the Palatine School established by the Englishman Alcuin (735-804), that the Church of Rome became almost exclusively committed to Augustinian theology. " (personally, I'd say we could even omit the a/c Romanides, because as I worded it I think it's a fair summary, but I'm no authority.) To say that the RC church did not arise as a distinct church till then is an incredible oversimplification. To say that the theological orientation became much sharper at that period makes more sense. Personally, I would agree that Charlemagne fostered the increasing separation of the theology as way of distinguishing the Western and Eastern churches primarily to assert his equal standing as Roman emperor by having control over the Western church, but this would need to be ascribed to a more neutral writer than Romanides. Romanides shows his bias by making the unwarranted extrapolation that this proves the error of RC theology--as if political influences had no role in the EO tradition also.

More generally, I interpret LM's editing as an attempt to continue his involvement as the interpreter of the RC tradition, and suggest he not attempt to do so in any manner in any article. I am not able to judge whether he has sufficient understanding of the range of EO church history and thought to interpret the EO tradition, nor can I judge if Romanides is representative of all of contemporary EO scholarship. (though a priori I think it unlikely that any one scholar is fully representative, I do not know the degree to which his views are central). However, I think it's clear from all the above , & earlier, that he is not able to write properly about the Western position, & I think the over-reliance on a single source is a symptom of this.

LM, you've asked for the next step in dispute resolution, 3rd Opinion, and I've given it. You could proceed to an RfC, but I think you would do very much better to let this rest and simply edit with your real sphere of knowledge and interest--I'd suggest articles on individual EO theologians and prelates, an area where we are really deficient.. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I must admit I agree with most of what DGG said, as I have been trying for quite sometime to wrestle with how to put into this and other related articles how the change that Charlemagne made to the Western church be presented. I am open to being criticized for my own way or style of expressing it. However this episode is critical to the Eastern Orthodox position on this issue and I feel it should in some form be in the article or related articles. I would hope that what you posted DGG might get put in the article as it really does express the position of the Orthodox and how the politics of the Franks played into causing the schism. I understand that I have room for improvement in my editing and I accept your criticism. But could you post the passage you wrote to the article? Is there away I could get some help as to how to say this and include it in this article and related articles? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The agreement forbids either from editing the article to make representations of the other's faith community, but does not forbid either of them from editing the article to make representations of their own faith community's view of the other faith community, as long as such representations are referenced correctly and are clearly identified as commentary from one faith community on the other. LM's use of Romanides appears to be entirely within the letter and spirit of this agreement. I agree that the use of Romanides in this case needs to be scrutinized for the reasons DGG describes, and I agree with DGG that over-reliance on one source is a problem with this edit, but I don't see a problem with the fact of the edit itself; it needs to be identified as EO commentary on the RCC, and sourced more extensively, and LM has just demonstrated his willingness to have that happen. I will work with LM on improving the documentation and wording of the edit.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Section break

May I take it that you, as the administrator responsible for the editing restriction, accept Taiwan boi's view that LoveMonkey's edits of 9 March and subsequently do not violate the restriction? Once I am sure, I can then respond with similar edits, something that, ever since they began, I have been refraining from doing. Esoglou (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The above thread contains advice to LoveMonkey as to the scope of the editing restriction. My impression is that the advice has been taken. What are the 'similar edits' that you are thinking of making? The editing restriction is still on the books and can be enforced by any admin, not just me. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response and for your statement of your position. I did not expect to have to deal with the question so soon. Nor am I in a hurry to do so. And tonight I do not have time even to start an examination of the many changes he has made. One that comes to mind immediately, because of its untypical nature, is the moving to under the heading of Roman Catholicism of writings by theologians both Eastern and Western, Catholic and Protestant. That should be easy to fix. And fixing it ought to be non-controversial. Perhaps I will start with that tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. The paragraph should not be kept in the Roman Catholic section since it contains some Protestant opinions. I don't see any Eastern theologians there -- Bessarion must count as Western. If you plan to revise this paragraph, why not state your intention on the talk page first, to avoid any misunderstandings. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

May I? Phatius McBluff, who was very active in setting up the exclusion, understood it as not allowing even Talk-page discussion, a view that he repeated recently. However, he seems to have withdrawn from Wikipedia since his latest interaction with LoveMonkey. So it seems I may on the Talk pages raise questions about what may be excluded matters, in spite of being told by both Phatius and Taiwan boi that I should not. If I may, then I am on the same level as LoveMonkey, who, as I mentioned, has successfully defended against Phatius his right to raise such questions on a Talk page. (And if I may, I will probably also answer the claim by LoveMonkey that made Phatius give up, the claim that by undoing vandalism I had violated a promise not to edit one particular article. The promise was conditional on LoveMonkey undertaking to do likewise, something that he expressly refused to do.) Esoglou (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that the restriction won't allow you to comment on talk pages. It seems to imply *article* talk pages. You should leave a draft here of how you would propose to revise that paragraph. I could then copy the proposal to the *article* talk page to get further comments, and you would not be violating anything. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In view of the unclear attack on me below, I am reluctant to take the initiative of opening a discussion about revising the paragraph, as I would with an editor with whom discussion would soon reach a conclusion acceptable to both. I think you agree that the section that LoveMonkey moved, which contains Protestant opinions, should not be placed under the heading of Roman Catholic teaching. So, instead of revising the paragraph, can the move be simply undone? Would you undo it? In that way I could postpone yet further any editing by me in response to LoveMonkey's editing.

But is it really necessary for me to open a discussion on how I propose to revise the paragraph? Can I not just edit directly, without prior discussion, as LoveMonkey has been doing? Esoglou (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the paragraph called 'Monarchy of the Father in the West' is about the teachings of the Western church, it is fine if you want to edit it directly. The other complaint is about an edit you made at Orthodox Christianity, which is a different matter. It would be best if you undo your edit at Orthodox Christianity. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not understanding why I should undo an edit that was not at all one of the excluded "comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice", but concerned instead the meaning of the phrase "orthodox Christianity". Esoglou (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow this at all. In Orthodox Christianity, you replaced a section beginning this way: "The term Orthodox Christianity usually refers to:"... Now you're saying that what you added to the article has nothing to do with EO teaching or practice? I think most people would say that it does. The restriction says "Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice." EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you read through the text that I changed or did you not get beyond the first words? It continued, rather ungrammatically:

Orthodox Christianity is term used by other Churches, which personally describing themselves with:

• the Oriental Orthodox Church, which also uses the official name of "Orthodox" and also considers itself to be the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles almost 2,000 years ago. The church was established when it digressed from the Orthodox Church in First Council of Ephesus and in Council of Chalcedon and de facto it started considering itself to be the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church after the Orthodox Church.
• any other Churches considering themselves as orthodox (non-heretical), irrespective of whether the body upholding that form uses the word "orthodox" in its official name, ...
• mainstream churches, as opposed to what the person using the term regards as sects or cults."

You surely don't think that it is "Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice" that the term in question means not only the Eastern Orthodox Church but also the Oriental Orthodox Church, any other Churches considering themselves orthodox, and mainstream churches as opposed to what the person using the term "orthodox Christianity" regards as sects or cults? And you surely don't think that this is an article about something other than the various meanings of the phrase "orthodox Christianity", meanings that are by no means limited to "Eastern Orthodox Christianity"? Esoglou (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you expect LoveMonkey to follow the restriction, and you expect others to be content with this arrangement, I don't think you can dance around the edges like this. You are allowed to edit 'Western Stuff' and LoveMonkey 'Eastern Stuff'. If we can't interpret this in a broad way and have everyone respect it, the system will fail. In fact, if you persist in your interpretation, I think either the scheme will collapse, or you may have to be blocked, I can't tell which at this point. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't understand how you can say the disambiguating article on orthodox Christianity is only about the Eastern Orthodox Church and not at all about the other churches in it: not at all about Oriental Orthodoxy (divided from the Eastern Orthodox Church for six centuries before division arose between the latter and the Roman Catholic Church), not at all about the Old Catholic Church, not at all about the independent Catholic Churches, not at all about the Continuing Anglican Movement, not at all about the Liberal Catholic Church, all of which were already mentioned in the version of the article that I changed. You have read that version, have you? It is available here. The Eastern Orthodox Church is only one of the churches mentioned in Pensionero's version of the article. Saying that the mention of the Eastern Orthodox Church turns the orthodox Christianity article into an "Eastern Stuff" article seems no more logical than saying that the mention of the other churches turns it into a "Western Stuff" article. Esoglou (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think that Orthodox Christianity falls under both Eastern Stuff and Western Stuff, then neither of you should edit it. You and LM get along so badly that you could not collaborate successfully there. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1. While, in spite of the fact that Eastern Orthodox Church is only one of the six named religious groups that the disambiguation page on "orthodox Christianity" distinguishes, not to mention the two generic classes that it also lists ("any other Churches considering themselves as orthodox" and "mainstream churches"), you think this disambiguation page falls under "Eastern Stuff", I do not think it is about either "Eastern Stuff" or "Western Stuff". It is simply a disambiguation page on the various meanings of the phrase "orthodox Christianity".

2. The exclusion that you put into effect for a trial period of one month from 8 February concerned neither generically "Eastern Stuff" nor generically "Western Stuff". It ruled out "edits or talk page comments regarding teaching or practice" - Roman Catholic teaching or practice by LoveMonkey, Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice by me. The edit you complain of touched no aspect whatever of Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice: that edit was only about the meanings of the phrase "orthodox Christianity", a phrase that, the disambiguation page was already saying, has several meanings apart from "Eastern Orthodox Christianity".

3. Since the imposition of the exclusion, LoveMonkey has continued to insert derogatory comments on the Roman Catholic Church, citing a hostile Eastern Orthodox critic. I have made no edit or talk page comment whatever about the Eastern Orthodox Church. On 11 February I made two edits concerning Roman Catholic (not Eastern Orthodox) teaching, the second of which consisted in undoing the earliest of LoveMonkey's post-exclusion edits, which I thought violated the exclusion by adding material not expressly attributed in the body of the article to an Eastern Orthodox writer and presented as that writer's opinion. I was reprimanded for doing so. I did not question the judgement of those who reprimanded me, but agreed not to repeat my reversion, trusting (wrongly, as it turned out) that LoveMonkey would be told to undo his edits or at least would cease to make such edits. When I made the edit, I also made a comment on the talk page to explain my edit, and was reprimanded for using the talk page. (Note that the talk page comment was not on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice, but only about why I reverted LoveMonkey's action.) I did not question the judgement of those who reprimanded me, but agreed not to repeat. On another article I undid an act of blatant vandalism concerning the Roman Catholic Church (not the Eastern Orthodox Church), and LoveMonkey immediately restored the vandalism and proceeded to make several other edits in that article and to make a talk-page comment on the matter. I refrained from responding on the talk page, seeing that I had been told not to use it and trusting that what I had been reprimanded for would not be allowed either for LoveMonkey. Events proved that, unlike me, he is allowed to use the talk page. When at last I do question something, namely a demand that I undo an edit in a page that is not about the teaching or practice of any church, but only about the various ways in which a particular phrase is in fact used, I am threatened with being blocked.

4. I fear that I have regretfully made an enemy of the administrator who established the trial-period exclusion and to whom for that reason I continue to look for an enlightened and balanced interpretation of the exclusion. Esoglou (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The restriction is *not* for a trial period of one month. It is permanent for both you and LoveMonkey, as can be learned from a reading of WP:RESTRICT. If you want the restriction to be changed, we can discuss it. But the very lengthy response here doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Only a simple restriction which is easy for everyone to understand is likely to work. I cannot devote my full-time attention to the monitoring of this restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

When on 8 February you spoke of the restriction as experimental for a month, you said it could then be modified "by mutual consent". Such mutual consent seems unimaginable now. So of course your restriction is now permanent.

At least, would you withdraw the demand that I undo my edit of the disambiguation page, and indicate that there should be parity between the two parties to the agreement? Esoglou (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To avoid sanctions, you should go ahead and revert your edit to Orthodox Christianity. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Posting restrictions

This edit by Esoglou [5] how is this a contribution that is not a violation of the posting restrictions that have been placed on him? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Esoglou to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if LoveMonkey explained which of the restrictions he thinks I have violated and how.

"Esoglou will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice.

"Esoglou may add information about Roman Catholic commentary (positive or negative) on Eastern Orthodox 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 EO teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with RC teaching/practice." Esoglou (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So does this edit [6] by Esoglou not violate that restriction? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In what way do you claim that it violates which restriction? Until you clarify, I can't know what I'm being asked to respond to. Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou knows this isn't up to him. Esoglou knows the question is directed at Ed Johnston and not him. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

ARBSAQ

Uh, Ed, where did you leave those notices?[7] I can't find one for BenJonson. In my opinion, he needs a topic ban for his tendentious nagging, aggression, and disingenuousness (see [8] for that). Earlier, he disrupted the FAC page, now it's the talkpage. I'd do it myself, but although I'm not involved with BJ as such, I have edited both the article (slightly) and the FAC, so I'd prefer if somebody else did it, somebody editorially quite uninvolved. If you agree, of course! I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look. Bishonen | talk 03:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC).

You notified BenJonson about the sanctions here on 2 March. See my last comment in the thread above: #General query on Shakespeare authorship question for why I might hesitate before issuing a block. This is especially true if he limits himself to the *talk page* of the FAC. If the FAC itself is being disrupted then some action should be taken. If you want to request a topic ban then open a thread at WP:Arbitration enforcement (which you recently learned how to do). CIreland said in the original AE thread that he would have issued a 1-2 month topic ban if BJ had already been notified. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you take a look? [9] I just now noticed this continued accusation. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider making a report at WP:Arbitration enforcement. I think we are getting closer to a topic ban under WP:ARBSAQ. I noticed that BenJonson reverted some of his preferred text back into the FAC. With this edit he restored a passage to the FAC which includes the text 'Oxfordians point to the acclaim..' after it had been previously moved to the article talk page by Bishonen. I would have left him alone if he stayed off the FAC and could control his language. Please identify anything which you consider to be a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am extremely busy this morning and don't have time to file an arb report. I consider his repeated accusations—[10], [11], [12]—that I'm somehow acting on behest or under the advisement of James S. Shapiro a personal attack on my integrity. Yes, I have corresponded with him in the past, but certainly not "extensively", and I have also corresponded with about 20 other well-known Shakespeare, Early Modern, and Medieval scholars (names available via your e-mail upon request), and I have never taken any kind of direction from any of them in writing Wikipedia articles, nor acted on anyone's behalf or direction. His accusations are yet another example of his method of trying to "win" his argument with bullying supercilious insinuations about me and others of which his edit history is full—[13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (list truncated to avoid tediousness). I would not be surprised to see more of the same if he deigns to reply here. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocking me for edit warring with MikeWazowski for the CW template

Why did you have to be so quick in taking his word against mine? I don't understand why you want to talk about how I should post why disapprovals or disagreements in the talk page when they wasn't any time for other users to add to their two cents. I also don't like how you pretty much twisted my words around while I was trying to explain my point of view (without so much time to elaborate). I don't have a problem if you ultimately agree with MikeWazowski's point of view. What I have an issue with is you seemed to be so quick to come to your conclusions/judgement. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:48 p.m., 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins sometimes double-check whether the person who broke WP:3RR will promise to stop edit warring. You made four reverts in 24 hours, which violates the WP:3RR rule. I offered you a chance to avoid a block ("you may be blocked unless you promise to wait for consensus.."), but you did not take it. If you had responded and agreed to stop the war, everything would be cool. When you replied, you made no offer to stop the war. You just restated that you were correct. You should have no trouble in the future if you will be patient and wait for others to agree. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

MikeWazowski continued edit warring after reporting edit warring. I have given him notice. You have been had, EdJohnston. Spshu (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Please continue this discussion elsewhere. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, I believe you, as an administrator who imposed the 1RR limitation on the Communist terrorism article, should express your opinion about this situation. A user Tentontunic ignores my arguments and de facto refuses to participate in the talk page discussion. They revert my changes, which I discuss on the talk page before adding into the article, under a pretext that they are "not neutral", and add their own text that is "more neutral" (according to them), however, no serious evidences are provided by Tentontunic as a support for these claims. In my opinion, this situation resembles disruptive editing on the brink of vandalism. Do you think the 1RR is applicable to this situation, and are reverts of such undiscussed changes limited by the 1RR? If you need diffs, I can provide them, however, the recent article's (and talk page's) history speaks for itself. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I don't see a 1RR violation at Communist terrorism. Questions of neutrality can be raised at WP:NPOV/N. I keep seeing mentions of Tentontunic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I don't know much about him. If you think he is causing problems in many places, you could open an WP:RFC/U. All I know about him is that he was blocked twice, once for a violation Mass killings under Communist regimes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, what he has done is not a violation of 1RR. My point is different. I edit the article using numerous academic sources and discuss all changes on the talk page (it is easy to see from the article's talk page). Tentontunic de facto does not participate in these discussions, or participates just formally, because his remarks like this[18] ,or this[19] are aimed just to create a visibility of a discussion. For instance, he mentions one ref I took from Penguin books, however, he fully ignores the fact that almost all my other sources are the scholarly articles from peer-reviewed journals and the books published by top universities. His claim that my edits has no support is simply a blatant lie, which can be seen from the RfC I initialised: a user Hodja Nasreddin and Carwil supported the text, whereas the users PЄTЄRS J V and Martin had some concrete objections regarding some concrete points, and did not object against the text as whole. As a results, he removes the almost perfectly sourced text, that I discussed on the talk page, and replaced it with that:([20]). Of course, I can revert him, however, as a result I will exhaust my 1RR limit, whereas he will not. What do you recommend me to do in the situation when the 1RR game is always won by those who makes a first revert (if we speak about two users, or about two groups having equal number of members, and is always won by a simple numerical majority)? I am doing a serious work searching and analysing high quality sources, I am trying to take into account all POVs, and what I get as a result? A user who even does not bother to properly participate in the discussion comes and reverts everything I have been writing, discussing with others and modifying during two weeks? If 1RR is intended to eliminate edit wars at cost of a decrease of the content quality, it should be abolished. However, if you know another solution how to improve 1RR restriction, please, do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC) PS. I have just realised that the edits made by Tentontunic were de facto a revert, so my revert will not be a revert of the edit, but a revert of the revert. I reverted all his last edits, however, that does not resolve the problem I outlined in my previous post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC) How about opening an RfC specifically on that paragraph about South Vietnam that he removed? EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC) During last four weeks I opened two RfCs. When the discussion over one of the disputable pieces of the text has become dormant, the bot removed the RfC tag, and I restored the text. Immediatelly after that, Tentontunic, who stopped to participate in this RfC after making a single "I-dont-like-it" comment, restored his version of the text. Therefore, I simply don't see how a new RfC will help. Moreover, the discussion on the neutrality noticeboard over Vietnam[21], which had a direct relation to the disputable para, demonstrated that the ideas that are being pushed by this user violate neutrality policy. In addition, as this diff[22] demonstrates, Tentontunic confuses verifiability and neutrality: if he found some fact in some book he believes that all other viewpoints of all mainstream scholars can be rejected and the edits made by others may be reverted. If you need, I can demonstrate that this misunderstanding is deep and persistent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Your explanation here should probably be made on the article talk page. In your post, include the names of the editors who you believe support the inclusion of the paragraph on South Vietnam, and those who oppose it. If the others agree that there is consensus to keep the South Vietnam paragraph, and Tentonunic continues to remove it, when he might be blocked for long-term edit warring. If you want me to look at previous RfCs, include the links. If the editors can't seem to make up their minds, then there is not much that admins can do. (We can only be sure that consensus is not ignored. In the absence of consensus, we can't act). EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) My questions are not only about this user, but also about a general behaviour within the frames of the 1RR. Concretely, if some user removes (or restores) the same text without providing a serious ground for that not every day, but every other week, is it a violation of 1RR? And will it be a violation of 1RR if I revert these reverts providing needed ground for that on the talk page? Going back to the Tentontunic issue, the story started when he proposed the text, and we started to discuss it (that was perfectly in accordance with the policy)[23]. I modified this text, based on what I know from the literature, however, I haven't added the refs, because I preferred to come to agreement about the text first. Tentontunic responded that text is "awful" and requested references.[24]. I provided needed references (which required some work)[25], and Tentontunic stopped to respond. When I addressed to him explicitly (in another talk page section), his respond was: "Sorry, was this comment for me? I have not responded above as what you have written is rubbish." (You can see how this discussion was developing from this diff: [26]). Interestingly, he again stopped to respond when I addressed all his criticism, and, immediatelly after protection had been removed from the article, added his version of the text into the article as if no discussion between us took place[27]. I introduced my version, which, in actuality was an expanded Tentontunic's version, however, he removed it with the following edit summary: "No consensus for either proposal" [28]. I started the RfC[29], and some users supported the text, whereas other raised some concrete objections (which could be fixed by subsequent expansion of this section). When the discussion became dormant ... (see my previous post). In connection to that, how do you propose to deal with the user who behaves so non-seriously?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC) The 1RR should continue to be enforced, but that provides no assurance that the article will move forward. For that you need good luck, good intentions and a spirit of cooperation that may be lacking on that article. If an RfC has run long enough you can ask for an uninvolved admin to close it. If there is little participation, there is not much that the closing admin can do. It might be closed as 'No consensus.' EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Cannot say I agree with what you say. Does it mean that the article that is being edited by just few editors, some of which are genuinely trying to create a good quality content using reliable sources and others revert all of that because "it is not neutral, and it is a piece of junk", cannot develop simply because voices of the first and the second groups have the same weight? That would contradict to what WP:CONSENSUS says, namely that "consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised." The unsupported claim "that is junk" is hardly a legitimate concern, and we have to do something with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I think Paul and Tentontunic can work out their content differences on talk if they can work through one issue at a time rather than jumping between multiple RFCs and the like. However, could you have a look at Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he is being quite disruptive at Occupation of the Baltic states. Igny has been tag warring with a number of editors, even reverting[30] Paul's tag removal[31] ignoring his good suggestions to work on the article text first[32]. All Igny offers is uncivility[33] and intransigence[34] despite no clear concensus for a move[35]. Igny is being so disruptive a totally uninvolved editor has reported him to ANI[36]. Thanks. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC) The problem with Tentontunic is that he doesn't seem to accept seriously the arguments from others, so, independently of the amount of references, quotes and arguments he is ready to unilaterally change whatever he wants. In connection to that, I see no way to work with him, especially on the article which is under 1RR. Regarding Igny, I see no problem with re-addition of the tag: I suggested to remove it, because the renaming issue seems to be resolved, however, the fact that the dispute started again suggest that that was premature. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC) As you said, the issue appeared to be resolved, it is only Igny that has restarted this dispute, and the only argument he provides is incivility, mantras, proof by assertion and edit warring over tags [37][38][39]. This behaviour is simply not good enough for difficult topics like this. Igny is simply being disruptive. --Martin (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC) If Igny resists, then the dispute is not resolved (at least while his reasonable concern have not been addressed). In addition, as I already pointed out, other editors interpreted the fact that the issue had allegedly been resolved as a ground for starting to push their POV. However, I don't see how all of that has any connection with the thread I initiated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Paul, I find it ironic that you see a problem in Tentontunic's behavior but are seemingly blind to Igny's disruption, but see it as a "reasonable concern", while claiming others are "starting to push their POV". --Martin (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Nothing ironic. Igny's arguments are based on numerous reliable sources, and these arguments are quite correct, as the renaming discussion demonstrated. Can you provide an example when Igny ignored your arguments and responded that it is just a piece of junk (Of course, I mean only those your arguments that were supported by what reliable sources say)? By contrast, I found ironic that, as I see, you are going to support Tentontunic's behaviour simply because he adds his voice to the POV shared by you. Igny is a person you can deal with, independently of what "camp" you belong to: he treat the arguments from others as seriously as you do.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Paul, are you representing the situation correctly? Care to provide a diff where Igny articulates an argument based upon reliable sources? All we have is this[40] after a reasonable request to him to outline his issues to justify placing a POV tag. We want to make progress here, Igny isn't helping. As I'm not up to speed on the current situation at Communist terrorism, which seems to change by the hour, I have not offered a view on your behaviour or his, so I don't think you are justified in stating "you are going to support Tentontunic's behaviour simply because he adds his voice to the POV shared by you", but I do wonder if that view may be descripive of your relationship with Igny, having come to his defence at ANI:"frankly speaking, I see no disruption here" --Martin (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Re "Care to provide a diff where Igny articulates an argument based upon reliable sources? " Sure. For instance, at 00:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC) he advised you to read the article in the Leiden Journal of International Law. Have you read it, and have you noticed this advice? He also frequently cites the Malksoo's monograph. And, generally speaking, he is capable to work with sources as well as you can.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Re "I don't think you are justified in stating "you are going to support Tentontunic's behaviour..." Well, if I misunderstood your words, please, explain what did you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Firstly, Martin I would appreciate it next time if you let me know that you discuss me behind my back next time. This way, I would participate in my defense against your mud-slinging (which unfortunately sticks, as some of your friends noticed in the past). That would also help for my defense in case you accuse me of stalking of your edits in future. But back to you latest point. I have repeatedly and consistently provided arguments for the rename and the tag. Most recently my "proof of assertion", as you so eloquently described, relied on these argument, which you so conveniently ignored. (Igny (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)) Ed, to demonstrate my point, below are the links to the last RfC Tentontunic started[41], and to my response[42]. In that situation, will it be correct to say that what Tentontunic writes is a blatant lie, which serves to only one purpose: to distract me from productive work, and that he cannot be characterised as a good faith editor?--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC) This conversation should be happening at Talk:Communist terrorism, not here. Questions about the quality of sourcing certainly deserve space on article talk. If you do go there, be careful with the language since personal attacks shouldn't be happening on article talk. Consider WP:RSN if there is disagreement about a particular source. If you want to report abuse by another editor, use WP:RFC/U. I can't deal with these kinds of complaints here, so don't wait for any action by me. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't say so. Whereas I prefer to follow the standard procedure when some conflict starts over other articles, in this particular case I expect it would be correct if you proposed how to deal with the situation when one party doesn't play fairly, and this is exacerbated by the restrictions applied by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC) If you believe that the 1RR at Communist terrorism is no longer needed, you could make a request at WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I assume that you are reasonable person, who is familiar with the history of the conflict, who has some useful ideas on that account, and, before taking any steps I would prefer to discuss that with you. Frankly speaking, I do not understand how this article is connected to Eastern Europe (even if we define this region broadly). From another hand, the fact that this article is a subject of a permanent edit was is hard to deny, so some restrictions are definitely needed. In connection to that, do you thing that the restriction you applied to the article is the best solution, and, if no, the how, in your opinion, these restriction can be improved?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC) @Paul, I am disappointed you are taking content disputes to admin talk pages. Quite frankly, from my part, I'm gobsmacked that you do not see a connection between Communist terrorism and Eastern Europe unless you are seeking to (re-)define "Communist terrorism" it so narrowly that it ceases to apply to anything. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Peters, when someone tells me that my sources are junk, and, based on that repeatedly reverts what I write, and refuses to explain why concretely they are junk, that is not a content, but conduct issue. I repeatedly suggested Tentontunic to go to WP:RSN to resolve a dispute over sources, but he refuses to do so. I am not intended to initiate the WP:RSN thread, because I myself has no doubts in reliability of my sources, and, if that will be done by me, not by him, there is no warranty that he will accept a result of the RNS discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Regarding the connection, this question has been raised by two admins (Sandstein and T. Canens) during last AE initiated by TFD[43].--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Both, I suggest you stop putting in disputed content and go back to discussing sources. Not everyone spends their time waiting for something to happen on Wikipedia. If you propose ONE source at a time to discuss at article talk, I'll be glad to respond. Note that "since we haven't heard any objections in X time" (i.e., it's MY WAY unless you object on my time schedule) is not the way to handle things, which I've also seen. As for going to WP:RSN, really, sources in this topic area need to be debated by those best versed in the topic, that editors don't agree is immaterial, not editors open to being persuaded by dictionary definitions. I suggest patience and less of a belligerent attitude, including not resorting to AE requests and soliciting admins to act against other editors painting yourself out to be a victim. You want other editors to assume good faith, you have to earn it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC) And P.S. to Paul, you have, in the manner of statement of fact, characterized my views as not in the mainstream. I'll spare us the diff. That too, is your personal opinion. If you wish to make progress, try going a bit lighter on the pronouncements which place you in the right and all your editorial opposition in the wrong. And I have to add that certain editors agreeing with pretty much everything you posit makes your positing neither mainstream nor any more an instance of consensus. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) And P.P.S. to Paul, correct me if I am wrong, but I've seen at least one bullet item list of why your sources are not up to WP:RS. There is the assumption that you are familiar with your sources and know which ones they are by the characteristics used to describe them. Do you really need the authors and titles spelled out in full? By your own statements here you're not making any effort to meet anyone half-way regardless of your protestations. Really, I suggest you get back to article talk; and not consider controlling content by filing frivolous arbitration requests or enforcement requests against your editorial opposition if you don't get satisfaction here. I'd show a lot more patience at article talk than here. This is all just trashing someone's talk page. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) I suggest a six month ban on complaining to admins about content disputes in EE, widely construed. Any progress, if it's going to happen, is going to be at article talk, nowhere else. And if it takes a painfully long time, all the better, perhaps we'll learn how to engage in civil discourse without kvetching every 5 minutes to an admin or filing for enforcement when we feel like our POV is being stonewalled (whether deservedly or not). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Vecrumba, you do not learn, do you? Did you forget what happened last time when you and Martin teamed up to irritate your "enemies", and defend your "allies"? Your recent behavior is just another AE request waiting to happen. (Igny (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

User talk:Zimbazumba

Thanks for pointing out my error. Reply on my talk page. I have no excuse for not proof reading before clicking "Save page". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Petri Krohn

Is directly and intimately connected to the Digwuren sanctions, and is currently making massive changes to all articles related to "terror" some of which are directly covered by Digwuren in the first place, and some of which were later added (including by you) to those sanctions. I ask that you apprise yourself of the massive POVforking/relabeling of such articles, being cognizant of the fact that her creation of a dab page for Communist terrorism was overturned at MfD in short order. I regard the actions as likely in violation of Digwuren in spirit and quite likely in letter as well after all the warnings given that editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is such a fun area to work in. Shouldn't I have seen you post your concern directly on Petri's talk page, before trying to unleash the admins? EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fun fun fun till daddy takes the T-bird away ... I speedied the POVfork so Igny :) suddenly appears to remove the speedy (guess he is admin-wannabe?). As you likely have noticed, I am not an editor as much as a person who follows WP policies and guidelines as much as possible. Paul, TFD, Igni and Petri seem to regard it as a "contact sport" (Paul even asserted my backing of the Sandstein AE block on Ludwigs2 was due, somehow, to my interaction with Paul and Ludwigs2 -- which is a stretch since the Quackguru case was on pseudoscience -- amazing, no? Collect (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism talk page. [44]I suggest to wait for the community responce.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I never "asserted Collect's backing of the Sandstein AE block on Ludwigs2 was ..." I just pointed Sandstein's attention at the fact that Collect cannot be considered as uninvolved user in this dispute. It probably deserves mention that for the same reason I myself abstained from participation in the same dispute. My only fault was that forgot to mention TFD, who also should have to be considered as involved user. In future I'll try to be more attentive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And for those looking on - I have had zilch involvement with pseudoscience articles which is where the L2-QG brouhaha existed. And thus I most certainly am a neutral observer in that dispute - in fact my sole posts on the topic referred to the WP policies and ArbCom rulings, and made no comments which could remotely be construed as being "involved" in those content fights, other than calling them content fights. Yet you seem to think that if you call me "involved" often enough, that I shall become "involved" in the pseudoscience area! Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not interpret my words, if something is unclear, just ask, and I'll explain. I do not insist on anything, I just explain the reason why I decided that you are not completely uninvolved: despite being uninvolved in the dispute over pseudoscience, you have been involved in other disputes with the same editor, and, taking into account that that was not a content, but conduct dispute, this fact, in my opinion, was relevant. And, as I already explained, I myself decided not to participate in this dispute although I had some arguments, so I treat you according to the same standards as I apply to myself.

Let me also remind you that you initiated this thread for quite different reason. Do you think we need to wait for response from the "Project Terrorism" community, or, in your opinion, a situation is so urgent that immediate actions are required?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there are so many articles with "terrorism" in their name (hundreds!) - including Terrorism, how can usurping the dab page on terror for an article named Terror make any sense at all? Meanwhile I have edited a couple thousand articles - I take it that this would make me "involved" in virtually every possible dispute on Wikipedia? Nope. Your apparent interest in labeling me "involved" was that you felt Dreadstar properly ignored Sandstein's stated use of AE as a rationale for a block, and sought to invalidate my procedural position thereon. Nothing whatever to do with "content" at all. Thank you most kindly, indeed. Collect (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Iaaasi

While I agree with your initial revocation of Iaaasi's talk page access, since I've proposed to formally ban him from WP, he should have a fair chance to defend himself. Therefore I request that you reverse your action for the time being. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 13:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow up of WebM incident

Hi, Ed. Following up on my previous message about the Wikipedia:AN3#User:2.89.119.157 reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Semi), one User:Verb3k‎ is now editing the same area of the WebM article. I've contested his edits per WP:BRD and wrote him multiple times but he is adamant to discuss the issue and is engaged in edit-warring. These new edits are not exactly the same as before, but their nature is the same: An attempt to give Microsoft the maximum possible amount credit for working on WebM format by citing feeble statements! Also, one of his earlier edit summaries makes me feel he is a person with whom I had an unpleasant argument before. It reads: "If you don't cease your bad faith editing, I will notify an administrator."

So, do you think the duck test comes positive here? Fleet Command (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:Verb3k#Abuse of multiple accounts and asked him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This allegation of ducking is false.Verb3k (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lolwut?

So... how does one accomplish this? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is resolved I think, since the editor has been blocked. See WP:AN3#User:Lkmen reported by User:Suffusion of Yellow (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What I was refering to is the timing. He was blocked at 9:59, but the edit takes place at 10:01. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The system was responding very slowly at the time, often giving the 'Try again later' error message. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

I regret to bother you with this issue again. Night w and I have some disagreements about this article and both of us agreed at AE noticeboard to reach consensus before making changes to the article. Recently he unilaterally archived some unresolved discussions (some of them manually, others by removing 'do not archive' tags and not replying to my comments so that the 7 days period of the archive bot kicks in). At the same time the article includes some changes that he made without consensus prior to the AE agreement/article protection.

I even made a sandbox (repeatedly improved, following discussions with another user) and invited him to look at it, but later he acted as if he didn't knew about it. After I pointed him again to the sandbox and to another discussion where I had already given a link to the sandbox and he has replied, etc. and I asked "Do you have objections to something in the sandbox?" he replied "I'll reply soon.", but didn't bother to do so (see here).

I write to you to inform you, that in such case the AE agreement of consensus-before-editing can't apply anymore (the discussions were archived by Night w), so I will edit it normally, abiding by the "1RR/day" restriction that it has. Alinor (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:Night w#Premature archiving. Unless one party is behaving a lot worse than the other, it is worth considering whether the one-month topic ban for both parties proposed in February at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive83#Night w should be enacted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Following your note he restored only the section that he manually moved to the archive, but not the others were he had removed the 'do not archive' tags. I think that he prefers the current version (it includes some of the changes he maid without consensus - I refrain from removing these, hoping that we will discuss everything first - but I will remove them if the situation doesn't improve) and that he is not interested in any of these discussions. And he still doesn't say anything about the sandboxes (unlike what he said he will do). Alinor (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert

In the collapsed section above you informed paul siebert to not call editors liars on article talk pages. [45] In this section he has accused me of being a liar around five times now. And is complaining if I remove these personal attacks. Please inform him to refrain from calling me a liar as I do not appreciate it. Tentontunic (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please supply diffs of what you consider to be personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can`t be bothered to look through the section I have pointed out then do not bother yourself at all. Tentontunic (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The first diff is [46]. I still believe that the claim that the text has no neutrality issues when the discussion about this text is open on the WP:NPOVN is false, so the text cannot be added to the article. BTW, some users argued that this text had other issues, and Tentontunic was perfectly aware of this fact. If "lie" is not too polite word to describe this their contribution, could you please provide another adequate term?

The second piece of the evidence is [47] (self-evident).

The third diff is [48].

My response is [49] I argued that the initial post contained no explicit references to this thread only, so the second post made by Tentontinic contained the second false claim (" I said you are the only person who has commented HERE").

And this [50] [51] is a final exchange. The rest is hardly interesting.

PS. I am definitely starting to lose patience when I deal with this user. In future I'll try not to address to them directly (because that is simply senseless).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need a cup of tea and a vacation Paul -- in your 10,000 character posts :), you have a marked tendency to use the word "lie." Feel free to dispute positions, but the use of the word "lie" when used as often as you use it in about every dispute you find yourself in might well be construed by those who do not know you well to be "attacks". I know it is just how you always write. Other's mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it is quite probable that you read my posts much more carefully than I write them, I cannot remember when I used this words to characterise contributions of users others than Tentontunic. However, you are right, I definitely need a cup of tea (that is exactly what I am having right now), because that is the first time during my Wikilife when I see so blatantly false statements made so frequently by a single person. However, if you will tell me that all Tentontunic's statements are true (of course, I mean just those statements we currently discuss), and no users, except me, expressed a concern over the edits he makes, I'll gladly withdraw my accusation.

So, do you endorse correctness of all statements made by Tentontunic, which I mentioned above?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the single worst forms of argument I have yet seen on all of Wikipedia, Paul. Try defending [52] Collect can hardly be considered as a neutral uninvolved party in a discussion about the L2 block. [53] If I were you, Collect I apologised first for doing wholesale revert of several unrelated edits, which was supplemented with poorly written edit summary ... However, if you are not ready for meticulous work, don't edit Wikipedia. ...Moreover, even after I pointed out at your mistake (which, I believe, was just a mistake) you still refuse to apologise and withdraw your accusations. Unbelievable

showing your continuous view of Wikipedia as your personal battleground

Oh -- and looky here: [54] Therefore, I even don't know how to characterise this your assertion using the terminology allowed by the WP policy ... In other words, your statement is a lie ... The fact that you found another source that supports your POV changes nothing. This is my second warning are also nice exemplars of your style on Wikipedia.

And of course [55] where he adds his voice in seeking sanctions against me for no particular good reason. Cirt decidedly did not view Paul's views as omniscient at all. :)

Oh I forgot, Paul never accuses others of lying. [56] The Collect's claim is absolutely false, Collect was perfectly aware of all of that, so the only plausible explanation for all of that is that he tries deliberately mislead people., Another Collect's false claim is: "One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks." The editor who warned him was me , You claimed that I deleted the content, whereas in actuality I just moved it to the more appropriate article , Obviously, all these your claims were false, and, taking into account that I explained the issue many times, I have a serious reasons to suspect that that was done deliberately. However, if you will let me know that you didn't do these false claims deliberately I'll gladly retract the statement regarding the deliberate nature of your claims, One more false accusation,

which is quite amazing since Petri Krohn specifically stated: Collect is yet again repeating the accusation of "coordinating edits". Talk pages exist precisely for that purpose – for coordinating the editing process. admitting the co-ordination of edits and meges/moves/deletions. But all of this is simply how Paul edits. Many of us know his style now. Cheers Collect (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to report me, go to WP:ANI. If you want to explain me something, you are free to post whatever you want on my talk page. In any event I see no reason to post that here.

In any event, I am glad that you haven't claimed that Tentontunic's statements are true.
With respect,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I know this is who you are. So do others. ANI is not for reporting what everyone already knows about your behaviour. As for your strange digression that I have to say anything at all about Tentontunic being infallible - that sort of rhetorical device is also old hat to you, and is as useless a debate tactic as it ever was. The issue here is how you behave, not whether Tentontunic is right or wrong. The issue here is whether you routinely disparage others. The issue here is whether you routinely accuse others of lying. The issue here, in short, is only your style, not anyone elses. And the facts and diffs laid out are conclusive. And I trust Ed also notices your style here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As Siebert continues with his allegations here then here are the diff`s

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]

All of these accusations of lies are utterly wrong, I have not lied once. And have in fact pointed out to Siebert were he is wrong [61] Now you have your diff`s, please inform Siebert he must retract his allegations and that he must refrain from such further attacks. Tentontunic (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

note

Hi, I reverted a large removal to your talkpage in this diff. The 1P is blocked now. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism etc.

Dear Ed. Upon meditation I decided to reduce my direct contacts with some users working in this area to the lowest possible minimum. However, since I am not intended to cease my activity in the Communism related topics, I anticipate some indirect conflicts between them and me may occur. In this case, I will not spam your talk page with my complaints, and will not comment on their posts on your talk page. However, am always ready to provide all needed explanations, but I will do that only if you will directly ask me on my talk page.
Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Paul Siebert's unfortunate remarks regarding my "approach" to Communist terrorism here and my response, I support his reflecting on his activities of late and look forward to his return to more constructive discourse. I have long and publicly eschewed complaining to (i.e., lobbying) admins or filing enforcement or arbitration requests in the related-to Soviet legacy space, as they either start as, or degenerate into, attempts to eliminate editors to control content. Given Paul Siebert's statement and my sentiments regarding enforcement, I'm not requesting any remedy at this time and trust my inaction will be taken as WP:AGF. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that undertaking did not last long[62]. --Martin (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Phatboi96

Like Risker, I learn something new every day. No objections to a block on BLP grounds whatsoever. Courcelles 05:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

lifted

Hello EdJohnston. If I said my restrictions were lifted, it is what I meant. They were lifted as of March 27,2011. According administrator AGK they were unwarranted to begin with. May I please ask to correct your AE comment in accordance with this message? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks it was nice of you to fix the comment! BTW as you could see Gwen specifically said she sees no reason to topic ban me on I/P I didn't see anything straightforwardly linked to IP topic warring as such, and as you know she did not although the question about I/P area was raised. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)