| Revision as of 02:57, 18 January 2012 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,236 edits →Off-wiki evidence: Please continue this discussion at WP:AE← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:51, 18 January 2012 edit undoFerahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,664 edits →Off-wiki evidenceNext edit → | ||
| Line 236: | Line 236: | ||
| This matters to me because I've had many problems with ] directed at me in the past, and the reason why off-wiki information can only be examined by Arbcom is to avoid outing issues. Arbcom is aware that this has been a problem for me in the past, and I was told that they've decided I should not have to answer questions about TrevelyanL85A2 in public. I'm very concerned that your suggestion to handle off-wiki evidence at AE is going against policy as well as against the decision Arbcom has made, and that it will encourage more of the same outing problems that these things were meant to prevent. -] (]) 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC) | This matters to me because I've had many problems with ] directed at me in the past, and the reason why off-wiki information can only be examined by Arbcom is to avoid outing issues. Arbcom is aware that this has been a problem for me in the past, and I was told that they've decided I should not have to answer questions about TrevelyanL85A2 in public. I'm very concerned that your suggestion to handle off-wiki evidence at AE is going against policy as well as against the decision Arbcom has made, and that it will encourage more of the same outing problems that these things were meant to prevent. -] (]) 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :I would prefer that you make any arguments of this kind in the AE thread. ] (]) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC) | :I would prefer that you make any arguments of this kind in the AE thread. ] (]) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't think that's a good idea - posting about this at AE will just encourage more of the same outing problem. In the comment I linked, Jclemens said that people shouldn't be asking questions in public that involve off-wiki info. But if I post something about this at AE, other editors will likely view it as an invitation to challenge me about this, and ask more of the personal questions that they shouldn't be asking. This happened once already in the amendment thread, and I don't want to encourage it to happen again. Since you are suggesting that an editor be topic banned at AE based on off-wiki evidence, I think it should be your responsibility to make sure this decision conforms with policy and with what Arbcom has decided. In this case it doesn't look like it does, so I am politely requesting that you reexamine your decision. -] (]) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:51, 18 January 2012
Issue on Armenian Genocide talk page
Apparently IP:24.27.71.3 does not understand WP:NOTFORUM and has reverted my removal of a non-constructive statement(s). Would you like to help this individual have a greater understanding of editing on Misplaced Pages? Since it may be Christmas where you are, there is no rush. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have left a note at User talk:24.27.71.3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand theoretical perspective of the wikipedia but it is just in theory! NOT IN FACT!!!! I have looked many references of the article and most of them belongs to Armenians!!! So is this neutral view!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Please tell me: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Fall_of_Constantinople#The_Sheeps_as_.22pretext.22_reason
The discussion in the above link, is appropriate or not for wiki? What the heck the relation between Fall of Istanbul and ARMENIANS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
So another EXAMPLE: WHY THIS LINK http://www.hyetert.com/yazi3.asp?Id=341&DilId=1 is in the reference list? I do not think so this a scientific paper????? web site itself also not in a neutralview??? SO DO NOT TELL ME WIKI IS ALWAYS IN NEUTRAL VIEW....
24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Clarification
I have some concerns about your post on the AE report on Tuscumbia. Whereas you mentioned the rampant sockpuppetry, you failed to mention the anon IPs which infest Armenian-Azerbaijani-Iranian-Turkish articles.
These IPs, have canvassed to have edits reverted on articles that fall within AA2 guidelines. The most recent canvassing has initiated an edit war a possible 2nd edit war and these reversions,. Undoubtedly, once Verman1 is reverted then the others that have been contacted by these anons(and any I have not found) will revert back to Verman1, thus initiating another edit war.
Shouldn't these IPs be blocked, since in all likelyhood they are editors involved in AA2 that have simply logged out? Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you take a look at these users,, they seem to be quacking. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Kansas Bear, please leave this post here for me to consider. Don't withdraw it unless you have changed your mind about these edits violating policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are numerous IPs calling for reversions(on pro-Turkish/Azeribaijani editors talk pages) and reverting the work of editors that are attempting to follow policy and procedure. If they appear stale, it is because the individual(s) are using a different IP. Lately, I have noticed numerous ones from Ankara, which are calling for reversions and adding information that does not have consensus, while not engaging in discussion. There are also a few that lead back to Baku.
- Back in April 2011, I encountered numerous IPs originating from LA(and surrounding areas) that posted on pro-Armenian editors talk pages. These IPs appeared to be associated with user:Phoenicians8. Though Phoenicians8 was indefinitely blocked, the IPs continue to post on pro-Armenian editors talk pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Consider if there is some simple action that could be taken in response. The canvassing doesn't look good. Do you know anything about past socks that were based in Ankara? These IPs often don't appear very sophisticated. Getting a solution for the Kars article might be a step forward. If we knew what articles were involved, semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I personally do not know of any past socks based in Ankara, though my interaction with AA2 is limited to the medieval era(writing references) and reverting the removal of references and referenced information(past & present). I have seen edits done by user:Noraton which later have been canvassed by an IP from Ankara and vice-versa. Since the IP that has done the reverting on Kars is doing the same edit as user:Noraton. It seems to be too much of a coincidence, at least to me. I do know that my edits are being watched since the latest IP is now writing in Turkish to hide his/her canvassing.
- Semi protecting Kars will not force Noraton or the IP to discuss anything on the talk page, since they already have added what they want. Noraton had already asked for a 3rd opinion and since that opinion did not tell him/her what he wanted to hear, he had decided to insert the information regardless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me that some admin action might be justified:
- Kars (possible AE complaint)
- Alternate names of towns, buildings and geographical features (Armenian vs Azeri) in a variety of articles (possible AE complaint)
- Editing by IPs who are engaged in canvassing for one side of the ethnic divide or the other. This might go to SPI if it were convincing.
- Some patient person would have to write these up with a full complement of diffs. Not likely to be done by me unless you can wait a couple of months until I have the time. If you desire to organize this I could advise you on when you have enough data. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me that some admin action might be justified:
- Consider if there is some simple action that could be taken in response. The canvassing doesn't look good. Do you know anything about past socks that were based in Ankara? These IPs often don't appear very sophisticated. Getting a solution for the Kars article might be a step forward. If we knew what articles were involved, semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would gladly accept any help regarding this issue. I do not have any experience writing up complaints at AE or SPI. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Kars appears to have some kind of naming issue. If you are familiar with it, can you tell me what you think would be a reasonable compromise? Also, do you consider yourself an involved editor for purposes of AA? I have noticed that you sometimes edit on the same side as pro-Armenian editors but you seem like more of a content contributor who just happens to edit in the area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would gladly accept any help regarding this issue. I do not have any experience writing up complaints at AE or SPI. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
From what I understand, to have another name in a different language there has to be a cultural connection. According to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names), "Relevant foreign language names(one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." I have yet to see evidence on the talk page that proves Azerbaijanis used to inhabit Kars in the past(since neither Verman1 nor Noraton seem interested in presenting facts and the IP is not required to discuss anything!). If the issue of "sister city" is to be the deciding factor then the German, Norwegian and Georgian names should be represented as well. I was involved, but only to indicate that the IP in question does have a connection to user:Noraton. To file at AE or sockpuppetry would be futile, since by the time it was "considered" or "acted upon" the IP would have changed(as already indicated) and continued on with its canvassing. This is all moot, since the IP has added the information back and I am quite sure there will be no discussion regarding any facts on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Something which WP:AE could easily do would be to forbid changes to alternate-language names by anyone who had been notified or sanctioned under AA. If I remember correctly this was once done in an Eastern Europe case, for people mentioned on the WP:DIGWUREN page. Unfortunately it would restrict you from making such changes, since you were notified under AA. The restriction might conceivably be extended to IPs since this is an area plagued by sockpuppets. Do you think this would do any good? EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, since I have no real issue with alternate language names, despite my reverting Noraton and his/her sockpuppets. If editors that have been notified and sanctioned under AA2 are restricted then IPs should have even more restrictions covering AA2 articles, including canvassing. What also should be added is anyone reverting/editing in response to IP canvassing should also face sanctions. I believe this will halt many edit wars that seem to flare up out of nowhere. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since we are discussing Kars, perhaps you would like to notify user:Erlik.khan of AA2. His/her edits, appear to be battleground mentality. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the reason for Erlik.khan's edit. What irony. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
NLP
Sorry to bother you, but you have previously warned Encyclotadd about personal attacks. The same attacks were repeated on the NLP talk page but replacing my name with "the most active editor". Its pretty obvious this is not going to stop. I asked him/her to strike the comments yesterday with our a result and s/he has been actively editing since.
In addition we have another SPA account Congru in attack mode here. Again I asked for those comments to be struck, but my request was deleted with the comment "You are becoming beyond a joke".
A brief glance at the edit history of the NLP talk page will show the way they are editing in support of each other. I don't think its sock puppetry, but there are a series of external NLP sites which have been making similar accusations to those of Encyclotadd and we have had a whole series of SPAs over the years. I have been collecting evidence for a possible meat puppetry case but this is a difficult one. We are currently in the middle of a spate of attempts to modify the article and these come and go every few months. As it gets to the point where an ANI case becomes appropriate things go quiet.
That is for context, at the moment we have a very disruptive pattern of comments on the talk page - not using evidence, making various accusations etc coupled with the personal attacks by these two editors. Given that one has been warned I wondered if you would take a look at it. Any other advise appreciated. Thanks for your time. --Snowded 04:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- And today we get this set of accusations, repeating the same old nonsense yet again. He hasn't even done his research properly, the wikipedia article on me makes it clear where I was born and neither myself or my family have ever owned property in the location specified. Oh and repetition by editors here. At the moment we have four SPA accounts, three created in the last few months all making identical accusations --Snowded 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have a thick skin as does anyone who edits on those articles, but sometimes it gets a little too much. --Snowded 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Edit Ban
Hi ED. Could you please reply to my post about my Topic Ban evasion clarification? I think I didn't evade my ban until 10 September, and I find this sanction irrelevant. --Verman1 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please review my request?--Verman1 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay; I've been out of town. After checking the original sanction notice left on your talk page on April 9, I agree that the terms of the ban were a bit mixed up. It was said to begin on 9 April and run for six months, but the ending date was said to be September 10. The ban was clearly intended to run for six months, and it was unambiguously entered in the AA2 log with that term. If you had noticed this at the time, you should have asked for clarification. I am not impressed by your immediate removal of the ban notice from your talk page, which seems to violate the rule about not removing sanctions currently in effect, at WP:BLANKING. Since getting the matter clarified was within your control, I am not convinced that your current ban should be set aside. If admins become convinced that you are able to edit neutrally elsewhere, you might be able to ask in the future to have your ban lifted. Over the time that I've been aware of your edits, I see no improvement in your approach. The advice that admins have given seems to make no impression on you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Block of Sheodred
Ed,
Just a question about your indef block of Sheodred. Was this based on some community consensus? I saw repeated discussions around concerns about both Sheodred and MarcusBritish (including proposals for topics bans) but I didn't see anything conclusive come out of it.
Without community consensus, don't you think that an indefinite block for a single edit in a wider content dispute is just a little OTT (regardless of the editors narrow contributions)? One consequence of an indef block of this sort is that they can appear to vindicated battle field-like behavior in other deitors.
I am involved in discussion related topics at the IMOS, so I am not about to reverse the block (and I'm no fan of wheel warring).
--RA (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can ask for community review of the block if you wish, but I would prefer that the initiative for unblock should come from User:Sheodred. He already knows how to file unblock templates, and he is the only one who can make assurances about his future behavior. If you check User talk:MuZemike#Query you will probably conclude that I'm not the only admin who has run out of patience. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer it also. However, I would sympathise with his comments left in reply to the block. It takes two to tango and the behavior of Sheodred's dancing partner did little to raise my admiration.
- There is no doubt issues around a small circle of editors warring over this issue. It is an odd one because the level of disruption caused to the wiki is very small: it doesn't really matter if Tyndall is described as "British" or "Irish" and having the article flip-flop between the two is of little consequence. However, it is the behavior between editors that is very worrying. More than the edit warring, IMO it is that which needs to be addressed.
- My concern regarding Sheodred's block is that it is not only out of proportion but, since it is applied to only one belligerent in this issue, it doesn't address the real issue: the hostile behavior between editors. Indefinitely blocking one does little to correct behavior in another, and may even embolden them.
- What's your view? --RA (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the actions of editors towards each other should be looked at and sanctions given. From what i seen, MarcusBritish was very much in Shoedred's face as he was in return making matters worse. I'd safely assume that MarcusBritish is currently feeling like he got one over Shoedred and pleased that he escaped sanction for his own poor behaviour. Mabuska 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- While I think Sheodred was silly (and told him) it is the case the MarcusBritish went over the top in sustained provocation. The thing which disturbed me was when he threatened to contact Sheodred's University to get him disciplined. I almost made an ANI report on that one, but it was all over by the time I got home from a trip so I let it go. However that sort of threat is not good news --Snowded 11:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- MarcusBritish entered this case in December as a kind of self-appointed nemesis of Sheodred. I was unhappy with his actions but so far as I can tell he did not get involved in any revert wars on Irish nationality. Since the December 1 AN3 case my focus has been on taking all reasonable steps to be sure that the nationality revert war stopped. When Sheodred came back from his one-month topic ban he plunged right back into the revert war on John Tyndall, That is the new information which I felt justified the block (I had been hoping that Sheodred would change his approach when his ban expired). If others feel that the behavior of MarcusBritish needs an admin response, they can raise that issue on the noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the actions of editors towards each other should be looked at and sanctions given. From what i seen, MarcusBritish was very much in Shoedred's face as he was in return making matters worse. I'd safely assume that MarcusBritish is currently feeling like he got one over Shoedred and pleased that he escaped sanction for his own poor behaviour. Mabuska 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the block of Sheodred and the behavior of MarcusBritish. Thank you. --RA (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Question
Hi EdJohnston. I am trying to clarify a question for me these days. Could you please have a look at this thread. It seems to me there is some problem in proficiency of dealing with situation where WP is being used as a vehicle for ethnic conflict. Questioning reliability of a source or judging about its biasedness based on mere ethnicity criterion is something very new for me in WP... I would appreciate your opinion. -- Ashot 05:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just a reminder about my question. Please respond as soon as you have time. Thanks. -- Ashot 14:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:AE
| FkpCascais's request for review of his topic ban from ARBMAC |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I apologise EdJohnston, but as I was indicated by WGFinley to appeal my sanction at WP:AE, however, I found more reasonable to try first to explain the events to you and him, as you were the ones who agreed for my sanction. I left a message at WGFinley´s talk page and I please ask you both for just 5 minutes of your time. FkpCascais (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
(Older post now, as DIREKTOR has commented above. This was the answer to your last comment directed to me) - The fact that consensus is not archived at those discussions is my fault? Should I ignore WP policies just because many other users want to? I don´t think so. You are taking the words from a user who is actually in disagreement with me (without any valid diffs, btw), giving him all the credit, and ignoring my reasons. I had all the right to ask for help at ANI (notece I never asked no one to be blocked, another missinformation), as I was the only one by then who analised the sources. Even Peacemaker agreed with me at the discussion itself! I asked them to bring the sources, and they didn´t bothered, bringing them only after I complained at ANI, something I waited until the last moment (hours before the protection will expire), and the same one Nuujinn already expressed many concerns (they were actually gaming the system by not bringing the sources until the last moment, so I couldn´t actually see them). Also, you can see how the only uninvolved user commenting actually said the exact opposite and was way harder than even myself towards the user I complained about. Now, what happend afterwords at the report is simply not my fault. An admin simply should not privide direct phalse statements at ANI reports (and AniMate insisted and made it twice!). As it is a matter of sysops, I asked for advice at Jimbo´s page, is there a policy against it? Anyway, what do you mean that the report was "misguided"? FkpCascais (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As Fkp has requested "valid diffs", here they are:
4. You go to Toddst1 and request intervention. Again it's evident that Fkp games the system:
It's also evident that Fkp sees Misplaced Pages as a battleground. He views "DIREKTOR&co" as a collective opposing force who carry out "offensives" and even considers the Yugoslav Partisans article to be in our "possession". -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
|
AE 2
What will happen with the second AE report on Son of Setanata here, as you have mentioned it in closing the first will I remove it or do you just archive it? Mo ainm~Talk 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have closed it as moot. The editor is already blocked for behavior that includes his edit warring on 13 January, so new inquiry is not needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 17:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
AECOM page edits
Regarding the AECOM Misplaced Pages page, this is user Ekr219. I understand where you are coming from regarding company-generated content on the AECOM page. Our communciactions are frequently picked up by top-tier media outlets. To meet your objectivity requirements, we will begin to link to AECOM items from these news outlets so there can be no mitake that these publications trust our content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekr219 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban clarification
Hello. Could you please clarify me if flags and emblems are within the scope of the topic ban imposed to me? FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- What FkpCascais is asking is whether his Balkans-subjects t-ban prevents him from opposing my recent edits on the subject of Yugoslav flags and emblems. I know this because he told me so on my talkpage and tried to avoid the sanction by starting one of his conflicts there (since obviously my talkpage it isn't technically a Balkans article). For the record, I would not be at all surprised if FkpCascais continued such activities as this for the next six months. -- Director (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you stop stalking me around? Your edit warring and breaking of WP:BRD on those articles is enough. You immediatelly took advantage of my ban to change what was established by the intervening admin back then (the separation of articles) and now you are edit-warring a completelly different user (actually a hr.wiki admin). You ask him to discuss, while it is you who was reverted and should not edit-war and discuss instead. Try to be a policy following wikipedian for a change. FkpCascais (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- FkpCascais, the wording of your ban means you must avoid the *topic* of the Balkans anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Thus it includes the discussion of any flags used in former Yugoslavia. You are not allowed to discuss Yugoslavia-related issues with anyone, even on user talk pages. Thus you should not have asked this question of DIREKTOR. You can still ask questions about the scope of your ban with admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Ruslik defacing RfC
Hi slakr, Salvio, & Ed,
User:Ruslik0 is now defacing the RfC, and even edit warring over it. Could you speak with him? There's something very wrong here.
1. As the RfC page recommends, I set aside a section for "Threaded discussions". I also created sections for references and quotations. I specifically asked that comments be kept to the discussion section, because we need to keep the refs and quotes spare and accessible so we can refer to them easily, and I knew there would be someone like Ruslik who would not be able to allow a ref or quote pass without pasting his POV all over it. (Actually, I figured it would be him, because he has in the past said that quotes are "lies", even when they are accepted as legit by everyone else, and linked to their sources online, as these are.) And voilà, he pastes his comments all over the quotes. (He is, of course, welcome to add any bits I overlooked, or to correct any errors I made, or to add completely new sources that support his POV: that's what these sections are for.) And he posts comments like "You are again lying here" where I literally clipped and pasted the lines out of the ref. Does he not understand what a quotation is?
2. There is a discussion section dedicated to the tables and 4 bodies Brown says are DPs but the IAU does not. It's called "The tables"—a neutral title, where people can say whatever they like. Ruslik added a new section, called it "Remove Orcus, Sedna, Quaoar and 2007OR10", and put it at the very top, presumably because he thinks it's the most important. It says the same thing he already said in the tables section, and so is completely redundant except for pushing his POV into the structure of the RfC.
And, of course, when I clean up his mess, he edit wars over it. (I didn't do his work for him and separate out and save his legit edits. He can do that himself.) If we cannot have a serious RfC, we'll need to go to mediation. But maybe I'm unduly pessimistic and he really doesn't understand how this works, or is one of those people who comments on references without actually reading them, and might respond to instruction from you? — kwami (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban
Hi EdJohnston, I briefly forgot about the TBAN and made an edit to Catholic Church and abortion in the United States which I promptly reverted. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Every day a new problem with the same user...
I will please ask you to either remove my topic-ban (as there is scarse evidence of any disruption by my side; and you even ended avoiding to answer my questions earlier where I still fail to understand why am I topic-banned at all), or otherwise at least warn DIREKTOR about his every-day incidents. The latest one is directly related to me, as he abusively cites me in discussions:
DIREKTOR´s comment:
@Joy we had two disambiguation pages, two flag articles, and two coa articles - now we just have two articles. The reason why the articles remained separate for so long is that FkpCascais (who's now topic-banned for tendentious pro-Chetnik editing) really liked to have an article where the royalist Yugoslav coa was displayed as prominently as possible. That's why I call them POVFORKS. No matter how you look at it, its nonsense to have six or four utterly insignificant stubs instead of two marginally useful articles - especially when that is common practice. By the logic used to seperate those two we might also add two more articles for the semi-royalist/semi-socialist WWII Democratic Federal Yugoslavia as well, since it too had a whole seperate set of flags and emblems along with a different political system... -- Director (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Ex13, I have to ask, are you restoring the Karađorđević symbols article at the behest of the pro-Chetnik user FkpCascais? I have to ask since he has been lobbying all over the place. -- Director (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This is pure abuse and provocation. I have explained numerous times to that user that I am not a Chetnik simpatizer, and if that user doesn´t have any other arguments at those discussions but needs to bring derrogatory (in his way) labeling of me, than really seems to be something wrong here. I will openly and directly tell you that you sanctioned the wrong person here. While there is not even one clear diff to explain my t-b, this user collects every-day incidents... and this one on my expenses. FkpCascais (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
He is also providing phalse information, because I never lobbied no one over that issue, what I did was just opening a thread at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology a long time ago, and you are free to confirm if I ever lobbied anyone as DIREKTOR claims. This is what I am confronted every day here on WP, and that type of comments and provocative phalse presentations is what is the base of all unhealthy environment that the Balkans topics have. FkpCascais (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- FkpCascais is on safe ground as long as he makes no Yugoslavia-related edits and does not discuss Yugoslavian issues with other editors. If he were to request someone else to make an edit for him that would be bad, but I see no evidence of that. I encourage DIREKTOR not to refer to anyone as a 'pro-Chetnik user.' User:DIREKTOR might be losing his temper at Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia and perhaps he could take a break from that discussion. The best possible place to have a nationalist or ethnic dispute is on an article about flags, and I assume that we'd all rather avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since I am mentioned by name I feel I have to say something. I myself am surprised that FkpCascais is somehow offended at being described as "pro-Chetnik". I do not think that is a personal attack, the Chetniks were a war faction - its like saying someone is "pro-British" in his dispositions. And moreover, I think just about anyone involved in the previous Chetniks discussions can attest to the fact that the user is indeed always, and I mean exclusively, very strongly disposed towards the Chetniks. Its all he does at those discussions and I believe it is very obvious on every single talkpage where they took place. Personally, I very much doubt the user is indeed offended by the comment, at least to the degree he professes. I suspect this is simply the latest attempt to prevent developments on that article. After trying to discuss on my talkpage, and trying to get permission to edit "flag articles" (without mentioning they were Yugoslav flag articles), it seems he's now actually trying to get me blocked so I can't introduce the changes.
- I mean, its as I said, FkpCascais is likely not going to stop coming here and trying to get his sanction lifted or trying to take "revenge" on me and others who participated in his having been topic banned. Far from taking a break from Yugoslavia-related articles, he's continuously scanning them and trying to influence them. I am personally sick of seeing the user lobbying with this or that admin to have me and others sanctioned. It is a continuation of his forum-shopping behavior and admin-coaxing. -- Director (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Off-wiki evidence
I just saw your comment about user:TrevelyanL85A2 at AE and your warning to him in his user talk. You say that you would consider sanctioning him based on the conclusion that he's an acquaintance of mine. Please clarify something: When I was first accused of being a meatpuppet in this thread, both admins there agreed that in the absence of any existing Arbcom ruling about an editor being a meatpuppet, AE cannot create a finding of fact about it. Ultimately I was topic banned based on a technical connection to Captain Occam due to WP:SHARE, but that obviously isn't the case with TrevelyanL85A2.
As far as I know, all arguments for TrevelyanL85A2 being a meatpuppet rely on off-wiki evidence, which can't be discussed in public. Standard policy for any decision involving off-wiki evidence is that it can only be made by Arbcom, not at public noticeboards like AE. Arbcom is already aware of the evidence in TrevelyanL85A2's case since Mathsci has emailed arbitrators about it numerous times, as he stated in the amendment thread. Being aware of this evidence, Arbcom has declined to take any action. Stifle and Slp1 explained in the earlier AE thread why only Arbcom can make a finding of fact about someone being a meatpuppet, and that's doubly so when the decision relies on off-wiki evidence.
This matters to me because I've had many problems with WP:OUTING directed at me in the past, and the reason why off-wiki information can only be examined by Arbcom is to avoid outing issues. Arbcom is aware that this has been a problem for me in the past, and I was told here that they've decided I should not have to answer questions about TrevelyanL85A2 in public. I'm very concerned that your suggestion to handle off-wiki evidence at AE is going against policy as well as against the decision Arbcom has made, and that it will encourage more of the same outing problems that these things were meant to prevent. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer that you make any arguments of this kind in the AE thread. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good idea - posting about this at AE will just encourage more of the same outing problem. In the comment I linked, Jclemens said that people shouldn't be asking questions in public that involve off-wiki info. But if I post something about this at AE, other editors will likely view it as an invitation to challenge me about this, and ask more of the personal questions that they shouldn't be asking. This happened once already in the amendment thread, and I don't want to encourage it to happen again. Since you are suggesting that an editor be topic banned at AE based on off-wiki evidence, I think it should be your responsibility to make sure this decision conforms with policy and with what Arbcom has decided. In this case it doesn't look like it does, so I am politely requesting that you reexamine your decision. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)