User talk:EdJohnston

Slow burn edit wars

Hi Ed, thanks for closing the AE re Baghdad Bombings. You mentioned that my edits have caused concerns, but didn't mention what/how. As you may know I often edit in this very difficult area of our project, primarily because I believe that the passions of the opposing editors can be put to good use in creating a more balanced and neutral narrative on the I-P conflict than is otherwise available anywhere else. I am very cognizant of the challenges of the area, and so strive to hold myself to the highest talk page standards. The problem is that it's not always clear what those standards should be. I had been following the advice of User:Georgewilliamherbert, as I mentioned at the AE, but from your closing comments I now wonder whether George's advice reflects admins' consensus view of how to work with editors who are reverting but not contributing. In your closing comment you mentioned Dispute Resolution, which of course ultimately requires convincing a third party to care enough about the subject to (1) bother reading all the sources, and (2) spend the time to negotiate with both sides to find an acceptable solution. Which is why in disputes which depend on reading a lot of sources, Dispute Resolution often hits a brick wall and just wastes a lot of time. The core issue in my mind is why should a third party have to waste their time getting involved if one of the two opposing sides are simply not pulling their weight at the talk page? Anyway, the reason for this post is to ask whether you can be a little more specific in your views, and /or whether you have any other advice for me going forward to avoid such concerns? This is not the first time I have come up against a slow burn edit war with an editor who doesn't have the time or inclination to discuss the sources, and it won't be the last, so any advice would be appreciated.

TLDR: What exactly can I do better next time, recognising the shortcomings of WP:DR?

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• 1950–51 Baghdad bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When there is a dispute, a WP:Request for comment or a filing at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard may be the best way forward. GWH's advice is consistent with what it says at WP:Dispute resolution. While getting your opponent topic banned is another way of resolving these disagreements, it's not the preferred way. Your edits during May seemed OK but during June it just looked like you and your opponent reverting each other. (Though the talk page showed you had done more reading). If you are concerned about wasting time, you should ask yourself whether it's a good use of anyone's time to use WP:Arbitration enforcement as the quickest way to a solution. Since the WP:ARBPIA log shows you've been warned twice before, and since boomerangs are unpredictable you might consider if AE is good direction for you to go. Verdicts at AE are not easy to predict unless the situation is extremely one-sided, which this case was not. Your recent proposal on the article talk page looks reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't want my "opponent topic banned". I want my opponent to be incentivised to contribute so that we can have constructive discussions.

You asked me to consider whether it is a good use of anyone's time coming to WP:AE. My perspective is that it often is, as arbitration incentivises editors to self-police, rather than relying on never-ending WP:DR.

The key point is buck passing to WP:DR is much less efficient and will waste much more admins' time in the long run. To my mind the admins at the various WP:DR forums are no different to the admins at WP:AE - i.e. they are hard working volunteers who are very conscious of using their time efficiently and effectively.

To make this a little conceptual, imagine that on 4 articles in a year an editor's modus operandi was identifying things they don't like, reverting slowly but consistently over time, but not contributing any content to talk. And let's assume the 4 disputes are deep into the sources so a third party needs to invest a total of 1 hour to negotiate a middle ground per article. So to ensure the right outcome for wikipedia, which is better: (1) different admins at WP:DR forums spending 1x4 hours sorting out each problem, or (2) admins at WP:AE or WP:ANE spending 1 hour on one dispute, thereby incentivizing the editors to resolve the other three disputes on their own.

Does this make any sense at all? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Fallen between the cracks?

I have just read the essay Responding to a failure to discuss by User:TransporterMan.

The essay states clearly, "As noted in the Dispute Resolution policy, all content dispute resolution procedures — Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Request for Comments (though the requirement is very weak there), and Formal Mediation — require thorough talk page discussion at the article talk page before a request for DR can be properly filed."

My situation therefore appears to have fallen between the cracks:

• Transporterman's essay is clear that WP:DR is not applicable for a case without two-sided discussion. His advice (You must have asked the other editor to discuss the matter at least twice / You must have given the editor plenty of time to respond / The other editor must have reverted your edit without discussion after you made those requests) is exactly what I did on the talk page over the last two months. As mentioned, I was following this [1] advice from User:Georgewilliamherbert at the time, which aligns well with Transporterman's essay
• At the AE, Sandstein wrote [2]: "three reverts are a somewhat thin evidentiary basis" (albeit as mentioned, all I wanted to achieve was / is a clear understanding by Plotspoiler that he/she needs to either discuss or desist)

So unless i've misunderstood, I cannot use WP:DR or WP:AE, and Plot Spoiler continues to ignore my pleas to discuss, so I am totally stuck. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler has not edited 1950–51 Baghdad bombings since 25 June. If he reverts again without discussion you might have a complaint. Since there has been an AE about this article I assume he will be careful in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've not dug into what's behind Oncenawhile's last posting immediately above, or even read the preceding discussion, so I don't know what's at stake here, who is right or wrong, and this is a wholly off-the-cuff, perhaps-not-apropos-at-all observation, but here goes: You might note the part about the discussion "requirement" for RFC being very weak. It is, indeed, so weak as to be arguably only a suggestion, not a requirement. It's contained in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the Request for comment process and consists only of this: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page." If it's not already been tried, an RFC might be used in this situation, but be sure to say that you've unsuccessfully attempted to get the other editor to discuss. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TransporterMan. That's a helpful suggestion and I will try that - I have just begun an RfC on the topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User Dailey78 has broken his restriction again

I've been trying to deal with Dailey78 (talk · contribs)'s NPOV editing of a quote and other issues and just realised that he's ignoring the restriction he accepted instead of a block, see User talk:Dailey78#Please adhere to your restriction on editing. He simply doesn't seem able to or willing to follow our NPOV policy and continues to edit without gaining consensus at both articles, which of course causes more work for others as well as breaking his restriction. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Since 10 January, 2014 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann provides for discretionary sanctions for Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles. Do you think it might be time for a topic ban under that case? EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, probably past time. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to engage in rational debate with this editor. He fills the talk page with interminable rants, and trots out learned catchphrases like "this is not a forum" or "No personal attacks" whenever people disagree with him. The situation is impossible. Paul B (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the above nonsense. The same users accusing me of reminding users that "this is not a forum" routinely remind users that this is not a forum on the talk page. It's okay for them to say it, but not for others. Paul Barrow engaged in a series of personal attacks, calling me "ignorant" on the talk page and other nasty language. I used the "no personal attacks" template because Paul wasn't addressing the article content he was attacking me personally. Please review the talk page history and you will see the nasty language directed at me. You can't trust him to support a call for a ban, because like others he is biased. They all share a POV and will do anything to silence anyone that opposes their POV. They fill the talk page with rants and then accuse others of filling the talk page with rants. They are hypocrites, par excellence. Paul Barrow accused me of not owning a source that I cited, although I have been citing from that source since Sept. 17, 2011. Check my contribution history. I have cited "the Making of Egypt" by Flinders Petrie since 2011, but Paul Barrow is on the Talk page ranting that I'm making up my citations and don't own the book. You CANNOT TRUST THESE EDITORS to be fair when trying to ban someone from these articles. They invent problems that aren't there to silence any opposition to their POV pushing.

They tried to silence Big-dynamo and countless other users that won't accept their POV pushing on this topic. I haven't reverted one single time since I started editing this article again recently. Not even once. If I add anything to the article, even a small change, it is immediately reverted by the others seeking to ban me. In one case, I noticed that only one of the competing theories mentioned that the theory was heavily contested. We all know that all of the theories are heavily contested. I added a few short words to the other theories to indicate that they are all heavily contested and Dougweller apparently agreed, as he removed the heavily contested language from all theories. This is just one example of how my contributions are helpful to the article and help to balance the POV pushing that would have led lay readers to believe that only one of the theories was heavily contested and the others are somehow mainstream.

If you check the history of the editors that are trying to ban me, they routinely edit without gaining consensus such as adding new DNA testing info the arbcom protected article without gaining consensus. On the Talk page the consensus is clear that the DNA material should be moved to the Population history article, but do you think that has stopped these same editors from leaving the DNA info in this article? Of course not. If I try to add balancing info, it is immediately reverted. Those that want more balance and additional DNA studies included have been systematically silenced over the last several months (because the other studies showed that the mummies were from East Africa). However, once a study is found that says Ancient Egyptians were from Western Asia (which is against the scientific consensus on the origin of Ancient Egyptians), the study is allowed into the article.

This pattern of biased "monitoring" of the article is plain to anyone that doesn't agree with the POV pushing by dougweller, paul barrow, auo, and others. They feed off of each other and are incapable of seeing the other side of a topic. Even when they are wrong. They revert everyone else without any time for discussion, but other editors can't even add or reorder sentences without being threatened with sanctions.Rod (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The above says it all really. Rational or reasonable debate is impossible. It's been tried for years. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Check the Talk page. Paul accused me of not owning "the Making of Egypt" and then went about trying to actually prove on the Talk page that I don't own a book that I actually own. When presented with evidence (I edited the Ancient Egypt article and cited the book in 2011), he will not concede that he is wrong, or that he would never accuse any other editor of making up their sources. There is no actual content in their messages, just their opinions and fluff. Take responsibility for your own inappropriate behavior before accusing others and trying to ban themRod (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of making up your sources. I said that what you added was not a source, which it wasn't. I then told you the correct source [3]. I also responded to your claim that you had repeatedly referred to the book, which you hadn't. Not once. Obviously I can't be expected to know what you have written on entirely different articles. That's absurd. I was not wrong about what I said, though I'm certainly willing to admit it when I am, which can be quite often. The morass of confusion into which this talk page is rapidly sinking is typical of the problem. Productive debate is just not possible. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't go through your entire contribution history without losing whole days off my life, but I can check the talk page archives, which I did. You claimed you'd often referred to it. You've never once mentioned it. Ever. Talk: Ancient Egyptian race controversy: one mention, not by you: [4]; Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis: no mentions at all [5]. Your citations are typically excerpts from various sources copy pasted from websites. The main problem was that you referred to a passage from the book, but cited it to something else entirely: a nonsensical phrase, which was not a source [6]. This is strongly suggestive of a regurgitated, misunderstood, phrase from a website. I told you the correct source, and then you replied informing me of what I'd just told you as if it proved me wrong, and ignoring the actual issue. The sheer topsy-turvy logic is evidence of major wp:competence issues. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul, it would be easier at this point to just admit that you're wrong. You can easily go to the Ancient Egypt article, view the history, switch to 500 listing per page and go back one or two pages until you get to edits on Sept. 17th, 2011. There you will see my edit and full citation from "the Making of Egypt." That was the first time I used it. I've used it again to flesh out the black queens content, which is a quote from Petrie. Here's the text from the Ancient Egypt article on Sept. 17th, 2011 since I am the only editor that now has to prove that I own the books that I cite in your unfair and biased approach to wikipedia.

In southern Egypt, the AnuPetrie, W.M. Flinders (1939). The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. p. 68. ISBN B00085BPNI. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) and Naqada culture, similar to the Badari Rod (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul, you are making up a false reality to fit your POV. A false reality where I don't own books that I actually own. There's not much more I can say about it.Rod (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dailey says he hasn't reverted. This is simply not true. This[7] is a clear revert. I think his changes to my quote from Alan Lloyd (breaking up the quote to add 'however' in the middle might be seen as a revert, and if need be I would argue is an example of his failure to follow NPOV. His reponse to my posting to his talk page about that edit was to accuse me of being on a witch-hunt. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with doug about the revert. I expanded on a quotation using the same source and the same paragraph. I didn't remove any content. I also grouped statements by Lloyd together. I appreciate Doug being civil about this, although we disagree.Rod (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Now, let's address uncivilized behavior. In his rant above, Paul accuses me of mostly citing excerpts copy/pasted from websites. This is completely untrue and more nonsensical false reality from Paul. Any one that has seen my edits in the Ancient Egypt article, AE race controversy article, Black egyptian hypothesis, Race of Tutankhamun article, would know that I almost exclusively use full citations from books and almost never cite websites. If Doug wants to be honest, he will support this statement. Here's a short list of books that I've cited in these articles: Herodotus (the Histories), Williams (The Destruction of...), Diop (several books), Mokhtar (General History of Africa), Jackson (Intro to African...), Bernal (Black Athena), Snowden (Blacks in Antiquity), Heeren (Historical researches...), Davidson (African Civilization...), Emberling (Nubia: Ancient...), DuBois (several books), O'Connor (Before the Pyramids...), Welsby (The Kingdom of Kush), Aubin (The Rescue of...). I'm afraid that next Paul will accuse me of being an alien from outer space.

We don't have to speculate, check my edit history and my citations and you will see that what I am saying is absolutely true and what Paul is saying is absolutely and completely false. Furthermore, the Lloyd quote that Doug is mentioning was added by others and it's from a google search of a book's contents. I hate that I had to expand on it, but the brevity of someone else's addition of that quote made it misleading.Rod (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not changing my quotation to split it and add 'however' is a revert is debatable, some Admins would see it as a revert and others would not. But that doesn't really matter, it was a violation of your restriction. The first one that I said was a clear revert[[8]]. And a violation of your restriction, which is why I came here. Nice that you appreciate my being civil, but your statement that I am on a witch-hunt rather devalues that. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Ed for posting again. I see this is concluded with a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

First, I will appeal here before using the official appeals process. Many editors have suffered short or long term suspensions from these controversial articles. Suspensions, have ranged from a few hours to 18 months. I only noticed one other permanent ban and it was for a person that immediately reverted the article back to their version the day that their temporary suspension ended. Therefore, a permanent ban seems unusually harsh for edits that even doug admits may be interpreted as reverts by some and not as reverts by others. The official revert approach was never used by me in my recent edits. My additions are open to interpretation. The conclusion is extremely severe for such a debatable infraction.Rod (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't been involved with the content in question for some time and whose non-admn opinion may well be questioned on that basis I will just say I looked it over and think the ban reasonable, justifiable and appropriate. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And he's decided to ignore it, I've just deleted an attempt by him to get a 3rd Opinion on something related to it.[9] Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think that the ban doesn't cover this let me know or restore it yourself. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The 3rd opinion is strictly on the user conduct of Paul Barrow and has nothing to do with the topic. The help text asks users to phrase the third opinion as if it is about the topic, even if it is strictly about user conduct. It's about defamation and groundless claims by PB.Rod (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dailey78, as a result of your topic ban you should have little reason for further interaction with User:Paul Barlow. Since your topic ban prevents you from mentioning the Black Egyptian hypothesis I think your only reasonable option is a formal appeal of your sanction. If you will fill out the form at {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} on your talk page I can assist you with the further steps needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ed, this is how I interpreted the help text on 3rd opinion. Now that I've read your message, I won't have any further interactions with PB.

I have not violated the ban. The third opinion concerns Paul Barrow's user conduct and is not about the topic. I am excerpting the help text from the third opinion page, where it clearly states that third opinion can be used for user conduct issues:

Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue.Rod (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's for where conduct is inseparable from content, which is entirely inapplicable in this case. It's really for cases where probems are long term, not some personal obsession about being "proved right" over a trivial point. The very fact that you are making a mountainous drama out of something that's fundamentally irrelevant to real issues of content is the real conduct problem here. It destroys meaningful debate. Having said that, I don't care whether you leave a report or not. It's a exercise in futility. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about personal attacks and defamation.Rod (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to look up the definition of a personal attack. See WP:WIAPA. Third opinion is simply not the appropriate forum, and I can't see how you can raise the matter there without violating your topic ban. As I say, you are free to try. Civility issues used to be dealt with at a noticeboard, but this was discontinued because the community decided it was not productive. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. I think your best option for further addressing this "issue" without violating your topic ban would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Paul B (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Paul, Ed has asked us not to interact and you are making that extremely difficult when you continue to address me directly. Furthermore, I choose not to interact with a person that falsely accuses an editor of making up sources and absolutely refuses to admit his mistake when it has been proven over and over again that the claims are groundless.Rod (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't try to blame me for your transgressions. There was no need to reply to my last message, which simply provided information for your benefit, pointing you to an appropriate board. And you were not accused "making up" sources, so stop misrepresenting the facts. If YOU make false allegations, you are the one who is making a reply necessary. Take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or even WP:ANI if you wish, but stop wasting everyone's time by sniping. If you wish to continue this ridiculous debate use my talk page. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Third opinions are for content; ANI is for behaviour. As such, going to 3O would be a topic-ban violation the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hellenism

Hello EdJohnston.

My edit wasn't incorrect. I am aware of the revival of Greek religion. The problem is that the name "Hellenismos" has been chosen and imposed throughout Wikipedia by user Reigndog, who I suspect to be the same as Dchmelik, the same user who "coined" the term creating the portal. The name "Hellenismos" has the problem to be a hybrid word neither Greek (the transliteration is conventional) nor English, where English has its native term "Hellenism".--Karl's Wagon (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the use of "Hellenismos", as you can read here, here and here, contrary to what user Reigndog claims.--Karl's Wagon (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If you disagree with the naming of Hellenismos you can open a Move discusssion at Talk:Hellenismos. The discussion will run for a week and allow a consensus to be formed. If you need assistance with the technical steps let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe I said that, to the extent that there is a consensus, it is in favor of "Hellenismos". You, Karl's Wagon, are the only editor in favor of your particular position. In addition, the article was originally titled "Hellenismos". Apparently, there was a discussion several years ago and there was a consensus decision to rename it Hellenic Reconstructionist Polytheism. I say apparently because although the decision is clear from talk about prior redirects, the actual discussion is nowhere to be found. Then, without any discussion whatsoever, someone renamed the article "Hellenism (religion)". There was never any consensus whatsoever for that name change. The editor simply got away with it, without anyone noticing.Reigndog (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not Reigndog, and I did not coin the term, which has been in use by pagans for probably at least a decade. The problem with using the term 'Hellenism' is that it may normally refer to philosophy (as in 'Hellenic philosophy'), but 'Hellenismos' has been used for the religion, so I would appreciate if you could move the portal back, Karl's Wagon.--dchmelik (t|c) 23:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdJonhston: I have opened a request to move the portal.

@Dchmelik: ancient Greek civilization never distinguished culture, philosophy, and religion, as still is in Eastern cultures and was in pre-modern Europe. The portal and articles on the modern Greek faith reflect this, discussing philosophical interpretations as a part of the religion. Emperor Julian's term "Hellenism" was coined to define all this complex.--Karl's Wagon (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What I have tried to explain to you, Karl's Wagon, is that "Hellenismos" is not the religion of the Ancient Greeks. It is the Reconstructionist version of the religion of the Ancient Greeks. As I have also detailed before, the Ancient Greeks had no name for their religion. You are right of course, that the Ancient Greeks mixed their religion in with their culture and their philosophy. In part, that is why "Hellenism" has so many different meanings. This is also why it is so important to have a different term for this Reconstructionist Polytheistic religious faith.

Lastly, your final statement is about as wrong as can be. I mean absolutely no disrespect, as I have no idea who are and have barely interacted with you. But just look at the Wikipedia page for the emperor Julian, no further research is necessary, although I have done such. In the relevant section of the article, it states, "Julian started a religious reformation of the state, which was intended to restore the lost strength of the Roman state. He supported the restoration of Hellenistic polytheism as the state religion." The term he used was "Hellenismos". It is clear he was only trying to restore the place the polytheistic faith once had in the Empire and decrease the place Christianity had in it. His Rome was not Greece of centuries prior. He had no more intention to restore Ancient Greek culture than do modern practitioners of "Hellenismos" do today. Such a thing is impossible and many people who claim "Hellenismos" as their religion today, openly state that they have no desire to do so, for a multitude of different reasons. This is true inside of Greece as well as outside of it.Reigndog (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should probably continue at Portal talk:Hellenismos#Requested move. I don't understand these issues and have no opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was writing the text above while you were writing your bit. I will continue the issue on the relevant page now, as you suggest. I thank you again for your help.Reigndog (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The talk archives of Trance (music genre) still need moving

thank you, have fixed it. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WotP protection

Thanks for protecting the article. I hope many editors participate in the RfC to get an idea of the correctness resp. bias of the views involved in the discussion. Please, stay by to intervene if some editor run out of arguments and begins with personal attacks. --Keysanger (Talk) 23:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Johnston. I wondered why user:Keysanger continues being allowed edits in War of Pacific article? I look back on article record history and find he been making trouble since 6 years ago (or more). Is there place where I can report user so that he is prevented from continuing disrupting article? you can call me Eddy in my page. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Join the discussion at Talk:War of the Pacific and try to establish a consensus there. My guess is that admins will now be paying closer attention to this article. Since your account is brand new (and perhaps was created specifically to edit this article) it is rather early for you to be deciding on the correctness of others' behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Mr. Johnston, it makes no sense for consensus when authors agree when war started (February 14). Only Keysanger and friends oppose and create long confusing statements. Eduardo Eddy Ramirez (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Lugnuthemvar‎

I just blocked him per WP:ARBPIA for violating 1RR. We are permitted to block without warning after a 1RR violation, but generally I don't like to. In this case, your warning satisfied me. That said, I wanted also to alert him to DS because using that as a basis for sanctions in the future does require an alert. However, the template is so unsuitable in these circumstances. The final sentence ("This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.") is so dissonant as to be ludicrous. This isn't the first time that sentence has bothered me, but it's the most stark.

My preference would be to eliminate the sentence. I don't see why we need it. If that won't fly, I would strike "only" and add the bolded word as follows:

This message is informational only and does not necessarily imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom debated for a long time to come up with that wording. My guess is we are stuck with it. They don't want there to be any reason for the recipient to question the propriety of a DS notice. You can add your own personal message as a separate edit if you want to leave a warning with stronger language. The new DS system gets rid of some problems with the old so I don't object to this feature of it. EdJohnston (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	im sorry about the edit issue with collateral am I let off the hook. can I get a response thanks from tomwikiman. Tomwikiman (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)