Archives

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. I don't know if you remember User:Santiago84, but you blocked her/him for 31 hours for edit-warring. Upon returning to editing, Santiago's first edits were to revert all the changes that got her/him blocked in the first place: Responsibility for the Holocaust Template:The Holocaust Nazi relations with the Arab world Could you leave a message for Santiago cautioning against this sort of thing? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified here. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an Admin? I get the feeling that you and the other malik shabazz or so work together to avoid any confidential background information which could be unpleasent toward some of your attitudes regarding common knowledge of history, the holocaust and islam. I think other Admins would like to hear of this. Oh and by the way [[5]] --Santiago84 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EdJohnston,

This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question, I'm wondering if you would be willing to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1? I'm making the same inquiry of Dougweller, since I trust both of you to apply sanctions where needed. I have not yet read the FAC top to bottom, but have kept it watchlisted, and have noted that Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) has been struggling to keep it on track. I don't know what I'll find when I finally sit down to read the FAC, but I suspect I will find so much disruption that it will be difficult to determine if the article has received adequate review or if there are still remnants of the disruptive editing evidenced in the article (it has been my impression, without yet having read the FAC, that the article has a rather defensive, argumentative tone, as a leftover from the long-standing disruption, and if that is the case, it may need more prose work before potential promotion, and assurance that neutral editors have looked at it without being influenced by the disruptive editors). So, before taking a look, I'm just wondering if anyone has looked at whether any warnings or sanctions need to be applied per the FAC, and want to ask that before I dig in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I agree with the actions of User:Nikkimaria, who has been moving comments from the FAC to the talk page. If you think the FAC is actually being interfered with, some further action might be needed. I've also looked in detail at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1#Warshy (moved from main page). In my opinion, the goings-on on the FAC talk page are getting into the area where Arbcom thought that action should be taken. I am thinking that one or more editors may need to be banned from both the FAC and its talk page, per the WP:ARBSAQ discretionary sanctions. The desired end-point is (in my view) that the FAC should be able to reach a normal conclusion, untroubled by any of the behavior criticized by Arbcom in their decision

Taking a risk of satirizing their views, some of the sceptical editors seem to be saying:

1. We disagree with the mainstream view of Shakespeare authorship
2. You can easily see that we are here arguing with you
3. This shows there is a dispute
4. Therefore the article is too unstable to become a featured article.

I don't believe that Arbcom would have thought this was a reasonable way for editors to participate in the future development of this article. Whether it's in a FAC debate or not, this is not good-faith editor behavior. The term 'POV-pushing' unavoidably comes to mind. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what I was wondering and the direction I was thinking. I can read through the FAC and come to the conclusion that half a dozen or so opposes are not actionable, but my broader concern is whether the disruptive opposes are preventing a thorough look at the article, and whether the article would be better served if some of those weighing in on the FAC were banned, and I could restart the FAC for a clean look? I say this without yet having thoroughly read the FAC or the article, as I don't want my impressions to be unduly predisposed, but with the impression that the lead of the article is too defensive and argumentative, while the "Overview" section could be re-written to a better lead-- in other words, some defensive tone persists, but other reviewers may be knee-jerk supporting to offset the disruptive opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-prot imposed as a result of the earlier AE discussion expired March 17; I reinstated it yesterday, so hopefully that'll help a bit, and Ruhrfisch indicated that he was considering an SPI on the SPAs, FWIW. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an SPI sounds worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't read the FAC, dreading what I will find ... maybe I'll get lucky and Fisch will do the SPI before I have to wade through it. Tomorrow! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Careful what you wish for - CU turned up no socks among the posters to the FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notices. Although there is no sockpuppetry, there does seem to be some degree of offline coordination by the Anti-Stratfordians. See here (self-identified as the blog of BenJonson off wiki) and here (the blog of Knitwitted). A note to Sandy - although there are a fair number of SPA opposes, most of the support came before these appeared (including my own). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is that the FAC delegate who closes the discussion is allowed to disregard any comments made that are not consistent with Wikipedia policy. If meatpuppet editors join in the discussion, it is only a problem if their presence scares off regular editors or prevents a normal negotiation from taking place. In this case, it should be easy to tell good-faith opposes based on article quality from those which are merely pushing an anti-Stratfordian POV. (SPAs are easy to distinguish from regular editors, due to their edit history). For instance, User:Fotoguzzi looks to be a good-faith oppose. So unless some new problem arises, I don't see that any dramatic action by admins is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To both get the attention of an IP vandal? Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Caleb Murdock. I have some anon-only rangeblocks that adequately cover him, but I have to keep renewing them each time they expire. This has been done. I'm afraid that a swathe of mobile phone users from Rhode Island will continue to be inconvenienced until he loses interest in his old battles. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Caleb Murdock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember him but wasn't that involved with his account that I'd be a target, I imagine I've run into him recently using an IP address. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User_talk:Sandstein#So....

Copied original message:

M.K., the reference link you added does eventually load if you wait long enough. It is a Lithuanian encyclopedia. Per Google Translate, the entry does say that Syrokomla's work appeared in Lithuanian *in translation*. Why would you draw the conclusion that he is a 'Lithuanian poet' if his poems were written in Polish? Though the weighing of sources is up to the editors on the talk page, not the admins, some of Volunteer Marek's helpful sources are not quite as decisive as they appear. The Cambridge History of Poland (page 332) calls Adam Mickiewicz the 'supreme singer of Lithuania.' The editors should consider if a section such as Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity might be needed in Syrokomla's article, to qualify his ethnicity with enough details. Another option is not to 'award' Syrokomla to any one nation, but just describe each individual thing that he did. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see - the source [6] which you talking about is used to reference part During burial ceremony, Edvardas Jokūbas Daukša emphasized, that while Syrokomla was influenced by Polish culture, he was Lithuanian poet, closest to Lithuania after Adam Mickiewicz. (this is very interesting as Dauksa was contemporary of Syrokomla) and another passage about translation. The ethnicity in the lead was referenced with another source as indicated in the provided diff.

On another hand I noticed today that similar act was preformed by IP (take a not that deleted material is referenced), yet if I revert it (deletion of English sources with rather inflammatory edit summary hardly can be seen as constructive), I would be instantly reported by nationalistic group about my "edit warring", as was done with Syrokomla case. M.K. (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the personal opinion of Daukša that Syrokomla was a 'Lithuanian poet.' I am surprised that you consider this decisive, given that Syrokomla wrote in Polish. Have you seen all the sources given by Volunteer Marek on the talk page that describe him as Polish? It would be more neutral (in my opinion) to provide a section for Syrokomla like the one given for Mickiewicz at Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity, that summarizes the published opinions about his ethnicity. You are urged to participate at Talk:Władysław Syrokomla#RfC: How should Kondratowicz's ethnicity be described in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I regard Syrokomla opinion about himself as decisive factor, as provided in persons own publication [7]. The same source which certain activists there so desperate to remove [8].M.K. (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EdJohnston, and thanks for your note. To be frank, I am unhappy that there has been no reply to the points I raised, apart from a plainly nonsensical one. For now, I am pursuing this matter at User talk:Versageek. You said "feel free to copy the entire thread to SPI or to a noticeboard" – is that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? And could you please suggest a suitable noticeboard? Moonraker2 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Versageek is the checkuser in this case, you may continue on his talk page if you wish. The positive checkuser findings are hard to argue with, so I don't know where you are going with this. I would interpret Versageek's findings as strong evidence that those two accounts belong to NinaGreen (talk · contribs). How else would they be using the same IP? Sleepers are routinely blocked indef, this is not unusual. If you want to appeal Versageek's decision, consider WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the solution proposed in the 3RR situation. I have tried to discuss the matter with the established user (Erios30), [9]. His reply, [10], (1) Once again brings back outdated discussions, (2) Keeps seeking to politicize the dance article's history, (3) claims the choreography and music belong to Bolivia. Could you please drop by and make a comment on the talk page? Your comment might help the discussion since the user seems to only want to listen to administrators and keeps disregarding my comments. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help regarding the BLP posting. I was unsure exactly about what to do in this case because the information was sourced but some of it seemed to border on a synth and pov reading of the sources. In any case, I really have to kick myself for forgetting to post anything to the user's talk page. I encountered the situation while on vandal patrol and was unsure about what I could do to remedy what was going on (I was also a little awed by the possibility that the user actually was Joseph Nye because I read a few of his books while in school). I appreciate you fixing my mistakes. Chillllls (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on my talk page with the general warning towards any editor who "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" indicates that you may see my actions as falling into this category. If so, I would be grateful if you could be more specific. If not, I would also appreciate your feedback. Thanks.Jdkag (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you under WP:ARBSAQ since you were one of the editors listed in the table added by Tom Reedy at 20:52 on 20 March. Since that page is full of discussion about POV-pushing by disappointed advocates of the anti-Stratfordian hypothesis, I hope my notification did not come as a complete surprise. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, your notification was a complete surprise, because I did not expect an administrator to take Tom Reedy's accusations at face value. I have written a response on my talk page, User_talk:Jdkag#Defense_against_WP:Advocacy_Accusation.Jdkag (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the 3RR report I filed on User:Keyessence, you declined to issue a block because too much time had passed since the reverting, which I agree with. However, you indicated that you would warn the user, and, after looking at their talk page, it doesn't appear that you did. Could you clarify to xem that while there was no block, the behavior wasn't acceptable? I'm mainly concerned that xe may think "Ah, nothing happened, so I'll go ahead and do it again", which would result in xyr being blocked unecessarily. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our messages must have crossed; I have warned Keyssence. Prodego has also warned him, so he's on the radar. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, must have been just a timing issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment at WP:AN3#Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (Result: ). -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I read your comment there. It's a little ambiguous whether 3RR was violated, but even so, I would want to see more evidence of a problem (and more effort at dispute resolution) before I would support issuing a block. A case for WP:OWN might be made, but a WP:Request for comment is one way of dealing with that. A content editor who is also an admin should have some ability to work their way through these things, even though they can be aggravating. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit at User talk:Parrot of Doom#Four more reverts and partial reverts in 24 hours. -- PBS (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that I've asked Philip on his talk page to let the others get on with improving the article. It looks as though they're thinking of an FAC nomination, which can be a fraught process, so it would be a kindness to let them focus on it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name was attached to a temporary block on editing the Titanic film article. I believe it was per a request from Flyer22. I'd like you to be aware that her editing on the article might be in violation of WP:OWN. She refuses to offer a compromise even when she's invited to do so. She has accused me of bad faith when I offered a compromise. Etc. I'm not sure how you proceed in these cases, but stopping anyone from editing is what a WP:OWN violator is trying to achieve. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a violation of WP:OWN. You are participating at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Towards a consensus, which is good. It sometimes helps if one of the parties will try to make a neutral summary of what has been said up to the present. That is, write down what you think each editor is in favor of. After you've done that, ask the others if your summary is correct. When this is attempted, sometimes it results in clarifying what is at stake, and some of the positions will shift. A vote of three out of five is not terribly convincing as a consensus. If you can shift that one way or the other, you might get somewhere. If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Esoglou [11] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

So does this edit [12] by Esoglou not violate that restriction? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Uh, Ed, where did you leave those notices?[13] I can't find one for BenJonson. In my opinion, he needs a topic ban for his tendentious nagging, aggression, and disingenuousness (see [14] 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[15] ,or this[16] 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:([17]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How about opening an RfC specifically on that paragraph about South Vietnam that he removed? EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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[18], 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[19] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[20]. 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.[21]. I provided needed references (which required some work)[22], 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: [23]). 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[24]. 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" [25]. I started the RfC[26], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[27] Paul's tag removal[28] ignoring his good suggestions to work on the article text first[29]. All Igny offers is uncivility[30] and intransigence[31] despite no clear concensus for a move[32]. Igny is being so disruptive a totally uninvolved editor has reported him to ANI[33]. Thanks. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [34][35][36]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[37] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]