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.

Esoglou made these changes to the East-West schism article [1] without sourcing or discussion on article talkpage. Some of these changes are supposedly made by the Greek, Eastern Orthodox church and supposedly reflect E/O theology which Esoglou is not supposed to be making. Please tell him to not start attacking Vladimir Lossky again as he has done on other articles.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start a talk page discussion about whatever you think is incorrect. Esoglou's change is not without interest, although his ability to make the change could be questioned. Perhaps the matter could be discussed one section at a time. If you can't stand the idea of talking to Esoglou, just state the problem on Talk and wait to see if others want to work on it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done as you requested. Please follow up there. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Esoglou committing another edit restriction violation [2] For the record why is the article implying that the Western Christians in general and or the Roman Catholic church call Easter, now Pascha? I mean the Antiochian Orthodox call God Allah, because they use Arabic but nobody claims that we are Muslim. This type of POV pushing is confusing and is a form of obfuscating to people. Why is Esoglou allowed to do this stuff all over Wikipedia? As the Eastern Orthodox do not refer to passover (pascha) as Easter, we refer to it as pascha. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, if you haven't already seen it, please take a look at this report and my closure. After the last brouhaha involving Arthur, I'd like my disposition reviewed. Feel free to take any action you wish if you disagree with what I did. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure looks correct to me. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to contact you at your talk page, but since all the confusion on the AE report I can imagine that it is hard, if not impossible to see everything. I saw the proposition of the result and I would like to say a few things, I hope this will not be taken as a bad comment by me.

I still don`t understand why are sanctions against me are considered since I did`t had contact with Nmate for a long time, except this new events of course. After this comments by Nmate [3] and [4] where he uses words like "anti-Hungarian" calling and calling me a xenophobe is not being noticed. I am not asking for sanctions against Nmate, but I am asking to reconsider taking actions against both sides. For example, for one not so harsh comment I was warned in 2010 and I think it is not right to ignore this comments by Nmate in this case. For my previous report I was warned and if sanctioned here I feel like in both cases I am punished while Nmate make inflammatory statements with no consequences.

A possible indefinite topic ban for me would just result in a confusion and most probably a permanent ban. Maybe you could reconsider a smaller time period of the ban or maybe even a warning for both of us.

Thank you for your time, Greetings. Adrian (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion at AE was to impose country-level bans. For instance, these would keep Nmate from writing about Romanian topics, and you from writing about Hungarian topics. The point of this is to reduce the need for the two of you to interact, while still allowing both of you to contribute. If you don't like this idea, please comment. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the best solution would be if this report could be sanctioned with warnings for both of us and maybe a 1RR when we are interacting so it would force both users to talk and to ask for other opinions. That would result in a long term solution without much tension. For the both of us to be forbidden to write reports against each-other as well for a while and a strict avoidance of inflammatory statements.

I understand your suggestion, but I will get confused for sure, I will be afraid to edit. For example historical articles, who can edit Matthias Bel or Treaty of Trianon,. For me, that would result in a permanent ban, it would be just a matter of time when I would make a mistake. If the solution of a topic ban would be adopted, I can only ask if that would not be indefinite, but for example 3 months, or similar. In the case of Nmate and me, interaction is unavoidable, especially because we edit a lot of the same articles, measures I suggest would be more effective on the long run in my opinion. Adrian (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Matthias Bel was born in Očová, a town which is located within the modern borders of Slovakia, you could write about him and Nmate could not, under the proposed rule. This article would fall under Nmate's ban from Slovakia. I would not see any problem with either of you writing about the Treaty of Trianon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don`t see a problem at the Trianon article, but what if I or Nmate would find an admin who is willing to ban one of us for a specific article. This would not stop us from writing reports again and again... 1rr in interaction, no ability to write reports for some time against one-another and strict avoidance of inflammatory statements could be much more efficient in my opinion. Who breaks one of this rule then a sanction would be imposed. We can`t avoid each-other on wiki for indefinite time, sooner or later one of us would made a mistake and one of us would engage in problematic reports and permanent bans. Nmate can be constructive, as I can, limiting us would be very problematic from my POV. If the topic ban is the only solution, I would like to ask not to be indefinite if possible. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't control what other admins might do in the future. But you and Nmate have been quarreling for a long time. I imagine that some admins are tired of seeing you report each other, especially when the reports are poorly written by our standards. Do you have any other ideas for reducing your level of conflict with Nmate? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don`t have much to add to my suggestion but I still think those measures would, in time, resolve our differences because we are forced to solve problems without reports, seek other editors opinion and avoid any inflammatory statements. Maybe in addition to force, when we are interacting to add verifiable information as a must - to avoid possible conflicts of opinions. In whole:

• 1 revert rule/day when interacting on an article between me and Nmate
• No ability to write reports against each other for a while
• Strict avoidance of inflammatory statements
• When contributing together at one article, as a must to add data with valid sources to avoid conflicts.
• When a conflict appear, too keep it under control and as a must to seek other people`s opinion.

If any of us violate one if this terms, would face a block. And this terms to be active for 1 year, after that I don`t know.Adrian (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable, but how can a block be issued in case of a violation. Doesn't that need a report? EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this are the terms, admin who imposes them would sanction in case of violation. The terms are pretty clear and there should`t be any complicated statements. At this point, there can`t be many interpretations of this rules. If a violation occurs one user would say exactly when and how is one of this rules violated on the admins talk page, provide diffs (without any history of us, diffs from 6 months and similar) and the admin would check it. In case one user makes 1 failed "report" - that is forgiven, and in the meantime 2 report proves to be false to, then a sanction would impose for false reporting(ban). If that current admin is unavailable at the moment maybe there could be established a second admin that could be contacted just in case. Maybe this could be done on some other way, this is only one idea.Adrian (talk)

This seems rather vague and hard to enforce. It would be more persuasive if the two of you would accept a voluntary restriction similar to the compulsory one I proposed at AE. By dividing up the area of conflict, you would be working on different articles and thus you would avoid revert wars. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t know. I would voluntary accept restriction I enumerated here, but topic ban I would`t be too happy about it, but I have no choice rather than to accept it. If it comes to the topic ban, I would like to ask not to be indefinite because that would start after six months reports for lifting this decision and who knows what. Of course, possible articles that are vague also would generate reports. Maybe if we accept my suggestion and put it under the AE as a special case for me and Nmate. There would be a possible report, but it would be much cleaner and faster. And after 2nd false report, the result would be a ban for the filing party. Adrian (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed. I hope you and yours are doing well. For quite a while after your last intervention, the employees at UST Global kept the site without changes regarding who founded the company. As you recall, the records for the founder of the site were spelled out in papers filed with the Superior Court of California in November 2007.

We have now reverted back to an individual(s) not signing in, making the edit to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross.

To help to possibly make this more clear, I have added under key people G. A. Menon's name as the company's 1st Chairman (which was his role) and it also shows Stephen Ross as Founder. Maybe this will help make the 2 very important (yet different) roles clear to the individuals who keep substituting 1 name for the other.

Thanks for considering what you had done the last 2 times of placing a restriction on edits for a period of XX days.

I am grateful to you Ed for this. Thanks & Regards, Steve Ross SteveJRoss (talk) 8:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to be neutral, but several of those trying to add non-neutral items should also try to be neutral. If you will ask me to explain in more detail I shall do so. Until then I do thank you for your assistance. Sirswindon (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above has been copied here from my user page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day EdJohnston, can I ask you and the other admins that have commented on this report to keep an eye on the current RM at Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia#Proposing_a_move_in_good_faith? It was agreed it would stay open for 14 days, but it is now nearly 21 days, and most admins with a sense of self-preservation may have taken one look and hit the back button. It might be appropriate that closure there (whichever way it goes) is done by an admin from the AE discussion so that there is consistency between the decisions, particularly if a move ban is implemented. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it OK that Richard made the edits and comments in the body of the East-West schism article?

• 1)[5]
• 2)[6]

Why would you deny this behavior has contentious? What would any other editor expect to have as a reaction to this type of behavior. How is this not edits that appear to seek to instigate an edit war? So now if Richard does not like what something says he can remove it from the article by complaining about it's syntax? Since his last excuse of removing a huge chunk of information that describes why the Eastern Orthodox are resistant to the Roman Catholic church use of the filioque is that the Roman Catholic church started killing people and warring against to East to make them also say the filioque WAS THAT IT WAS SIMPLY IN THE WRONG PART OF THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION.[7] But again my concerns are invalid. Why is he allowed to do this kind thing? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EdJohnston,

It isn't left me much choice, I will accept a voluntary restriction. However, I have to say that your reasoning at AE confounds me. Usually I do not edit articles Iadrian yu edits. Recently, Iadrian yu filled a RFA to set me up in which Iadrian yu provided a lot of diffs that did not concern him any way with outright false misinterpretations. Shortly after the RFA had been closed (just a couple of hours later), Iadrian yu followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before to partially revert me like nothing ever happened. And--and things were moving forward with me. I got angry when I saw that Iadrian followed me to 28 articles he had never edited before; and hence, I reverted Iadrian yu to the aforesaid 28 articles. It wasn't a content dispute, I took it as a harrasment. Although it is true that my reverts happend after a couple of days 'cause I missed to check my watchlist. I am not responsible for another user's behaviour. How could you come to the conclusion that I should be banned from editing articles on the grounds that I may be targetted there by Iadrian yu? If a user is targetted by one another, the targetted user is never sanctioned for it. Or, am I missing anything that is relevant to the case with respect to your original proposition, Ed? If so, please elucidate it to me.--Nmate (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed. Please review this to see if you feel a notification of the case is warranted. The first issue has been self-reverted, so I dont see the need for AE, but I feel the conduct egregious enough to warrant a notification all the same. nableezy - 20:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, can you clarify which of these steps you disagree with?

• I removed an unquestionably unreliable source.
• You restored the same information with a dead link to a primary source.
• I reverted this and explained why on the talk page.
• After much blustering, you produced secondary sourcing on the talk page.
• I self-reverted pending an inspection of the sources as I assumed you had taken greater care this time round.

I do not expect to have my edits that remove unreliable sourcing impugned with allegations of ""Palestinians are bad people" narrative that you have spent the majority of your time promoting." Ankh.Morpork 20:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the repeated performance of calling Nathan Brown, a renowned scholar in the field, an unquestionably unreliable source makes AE the right choice. I dont intend on arguing here, I just request Ed review the evidence and make a determination on whether or not what occurred there, from the gaming the 1RR to the actions at Fasting, merits a notification of the case. nableezy - 20:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]