| || |
-- [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 15:54, 28 February 2009 (EST)
-- [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 15:54, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Revision as of 00:59, 2 March 2009
Regarding , the purpose of discussions is not for people to "take sides". It's to attempt to reach consensus through addressing others' arguments and attempting to find common ground. Feel free to delete this message, I'll know that you've read it (-: Cheers, JYolkowski 18:13, 8 January 2009 (EST)
- I do know it is not about sides per se. And I am not keeping count on whos on what side all I am saying is that everyone was on Peters side or ignoring it but now there is real discussion and people are saying no to Peter thankfully. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:15, 8 January 2009 (EST).
I've blocked you from editing for 24 hours for edit warring, in accordance with your previous warnings on the subject. "arrogancy" can be defined as an "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride." That's an insult, and is not appropriate for talk page discussions. Gorilla Jones 00:01, 9 January 2009 (EST)
- I rescinded the block, but, do not think that means I side with you EE or with Gorilla. It's temporary until more people can weigh in on such a move. You would be wise not to add "facts" that may harm another person's psyche -- the Golden Rule, my friend.
Gorilla - are we supposed to work on this site with a face that is so fake it is going to crack and where we lie so we don't get in trouble? Or are we one that is gonna be vocal about if they want something changed, are angry, and have a negative opinion of someone. You can't sugar coat it. It may be harsh - but it should be said. Grow up - and you are the adult? I don't mean to be rude, but it is simply how I feel. I am not saying we should completely humiliate a person till they cry, although Peter surely doesn't have much a problem with that. But, we should definitely not be ridiculed for having a negative opinion. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:59, 11 January 2009 (EST).
- I never told you to "grow up". And I don't care how you feel. I'm not your therapist or your guidance counselor. My job is to explain the rules when you've broken them. For the record, the comment beginning "I rescinded the block..." was written by User:Sapphire, who didn't sign his name. Gorilla Jones 20:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
- Yes I know Sapphire did that comment. What I don't get is why this site does not have a heart? You people have no feelings, I am not kidding ,you are robots. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 15:59, 12 January 2009 (EST).
Copied from my talk page:
- Right, this stops now. Peter is not responsible for your actions. I don't care how much he provokes you, it is your responsibility, and yours only, to react in a calm and civil manner. Period. If you can't do that, then you don't have much of a future on this site, because right now you are irreparably damaging your reputation. I can't emphasize enough that you are on extremely thin ice. You don't take constructive criticism well, and you don't demonstrate an understanding of the consequences of your actions. You promised to stay out of contentious conversations and just focus on editing travel guides, but you haven't done that. Dealing with you has occupied an inordinate amount of time for me and several other people on this site.
- Do you want to know why Peter reverts your edits so often? It's because it's quicker than explaining something to you over and over and over again. I personally would not do that, and have not, but these longtime editors don't want to deal with interpersonal problems on Wikitravel; they just want to write travel guides. Your behavior obstructs that goal, by requiring a lot of attention, and that's why people are upset with you.
- I will reiterate what I said above: You will do best by working on your areas of expertise while observing the way the community operates without your participation, and learning from that observation. You must ignore any conversation that doesn't directly deal with editing travel guides. You must ignore Peter no matter what he does. You must not participate in policy discussions. I am not imposing these restrictions on you; I am merely outlining what steps I think you are going to have to take to have any chance of avoiding being banned.
- I will copy this post to you talk page to make sure you see it. -- LtPowers 09:02, 9 January 2009 (EST)
If I may also interject, EE, occasionally I have to just ignore things on Wikitravel. It's called a wikibreak and sometimes they're needed -- just stop working on things and get your bearing about you and start contributing when you want to again. It doesn't have to be an all out vacation or break, but, if you feel like you're getting to your wits' ends, simply do not focus on perpetuating the issues that you and Peter have been having. Simply take a few steps back, focus on contributing to guides and that's it. Do, however, realize that you shouldn't disregard advice from the community -- we're all here to see a free, open source travel guide that's useful take root and better the world for travelers and the community provides you with advice because we all want to be successful in the project. I recommend that you listen to LT and focus on your areas of expertise and letting the conflict simmer down so that everyone around can take a step back and analyze the situation from a not-so-heated perspective. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 11:27, 9 January 2009 (EST)
- Sapphire quite honestly, I have been taking a "wikibreak". Look at my contributions, I haven't really done anything. I only recently have because of a new policy talk which centred around me. I literally have no motivation to continue on this site, and why would I? There are no rewards (which I'm fine with) and everyone on here makes me feel unwelcomed. Why should I even both trying to run a CotM or make a star article? It's pointless. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 13:28, 9 January 2009 (EST).
- Why did you come here in the first place? Is that reason still valid? If so, do you need any other motivation? LtPowers 18:48, 9 January 2009 (EST)
Hi EE, I noticed your recent message on Lt Powers talk page and the Deletion policy talk page and wanted to comment and provide some (hopefully helpful) advice.
First off, Peter deleting your comment. Reading through it, I found the tone on the provocative side. Saying stuff like "you and Peter are truly the only culprits" and "deal with me in a proper way" is only going to raise tensions further and when you're trying to make a point or get someone to respond to you in a constructive manner, that's one of the worst things you can do. I believe you've also been told in the past to watch the wording/tone of your comments. A number of admins (and I'm guessing Peter is one of them) take the position that if a user repeatedly makes provocative/aggressive/insulting comments after being advised they shouldn't, then the comment will be reverted.
Another example of this is your post to Lt Powers page, where you used language like "is getting quite arrogant". I do understand that it's hard to write something calm and civil when you're upset, angry, etc (I come from a family that likes to speak their mind). Regardless of how you're feeling though, and whether you're right or wrong or both, it's nothing more than a quick way to irritate the other person and get the comment reverted. And saying I was frustrated or provoked into it doesn't work. The people who best negotiate their way through conflict situations are those who stay calm, regardless of the provocations, and don't say things the other side can see as an insult. Your post would have been more effective if you had simply ended with "Why did Peter delete that?".
As a smaller point, jumping into Nrms' comment thread also seemed unnecessary. It was a discussion between Nrms, Peter and Cacahuate about the actions Peter was taking. You don't need to interject your side, many of us know it and we can all read the recent changes and the history and get up to speed pretty fast on what happened.
Finally, posting this comment string on Wikitravel talk:Deletion policy. First of all, as Ryan said when he reverted it, it was already covered on other pages. But secondly, there is a time to talk and make your case and there is a time to stop and keep quiet, and in my opinion, you do too much of the first and not enough of the latter. As I said above, we can all read the recent changes and the history pages and figure out what is going on. You don't need to repost comments from other pages and jump into discussions. As Sapphire and Lt Powers mentioned earlier, the best way you can help yourself right now is to take a break or do what you're good at (working on Edmonton, Alberta, Vancouver, Winnepeg, etc). Just lurking around and posting comments on talk pages repeating your position isn't going to help us move on, which is what I think we all need to do.
Cheers - Shaund 22:52, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Getting back on track
You have done a really nice job with the Edmonton pages, which are vastly improved over what they were in the summer , and hate to see you sidetracked. Try to stay focused on content, and avoid the project pages and talk pages, unless discussion specifically pertains to improving articles. If you need to, clear out your watchlist of all non-article pages. (that worked well for me on Wikipedia)
If you can get back on track with the Edmonton pages, I would be happy to provide some assistance. I did live in Edmonton for several years and do remember spending a lot of time ice skating in Hawrelak Park, as well as some of the indoor places (for free!). Also, spent plenty of time rollerblading along the river in the summer, cross-country skiing in the winter, and even playing ice hockey :) And Canada Day was tons of fun. Though it's been a few years since I was there. Now, I'm probably not too up-to-date on things, and might recommend restaurants that no longer exist. :( However, I could provide some peer review and guidance.
My time is fairly limited, so I would want you to stay focused on the articles and I can make some time to help. But, if you keep responding to drama on talk and project pages, then I don't see things being productive, and probably not worth my time to help. Let me know what you want to do. Cheers. Aude 19:40, 9 January 2009 (EST)
- Hi Aude. Unfortunately the drama of this site is not worth editing anymore - I have lost that motivation that I actually once had. Sad as it is. Peter is the main culprate, I don't care how you put it, and Cacahuate doesn't help. They label me terribly and well - lets not bore you with it. Anyways, give me a week, and I will get back to you on if I want to work some more on this website. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST).
User block 2009-01-09
Just wondering what the block situation with Edmontonenthusiast tonight was about. I see nothing in his contrib log before the initial ban was put in place, and there is no obvious reason given for that block. Does an admin undo remove the edit record from the user's contrib log? You comment about Marc being w.in bounds of policy I find hard to justify when the raon of edit war-ing is given, but with no obvious trail. If things are removed from the user's contrib log on an admin undo, can I strongly suggest these be avoided so that the history is preserved so that people can see the edit war that was going on.
To be quite frank, I am starting to tire of this whole situation between yourself and Ee... While you are an admin (and a sysop?) and therefore a community member I has respect for, the constant battle between yourself and Ee is starting to get overboard. Yes, I know other admins have been involved, but it is your name that I see far more than anyone else's when dealing with Ee. I am not condoning his behaviour... I agree he has acted childishly at times, and against advice of others. However, he does appear to be trying to take things on board, but it's also clear that the 2 of you are now merely provoking each other, and it's going to cause more harm than good. The only way you are going to get through to Ee is to ban him. Remeber, he is young and so probably not used to this sort of collaborative environment and working with other people. However, the war this is turning into is not going to help him develop those skills; and, it has to be said, he is the future!
Can I suggest that you step back from the situation... There are other admins who Ee seems to listen to and who are, perhaps, more willing to take the time to re-educate him without things descending into a war between 2 people. Yes, I know others have tried and lost patience, but I would much rather someone who can get through to Ee take over and try and deal with this is a more constructive way. Plus there are many of us on here who are happy to do monitoring work to take care of any obvious problems.
I'm sorry if you are unhappy with anything I have said here Peter, and I hope you understand I am trying to take this from a totally neutral standpoint. I've not been here as long as you, and realise that as someone who has risen to the rank of admin you have put a lot of time and effort into the site. But I want to be clear that I am not taking anyone's side... As I said above, Ee has really not helped himself, but I do feel both parties here are now just provoking each other, which is only going to spiral into anarchy or a lot of bad fallout. However, I am just trying to be honest and offer a view on this from someone who has tried to remain as outside of the situation as possible.
As Ee himself would say, Keep Smiling! and I am more than happy to listen to anything anyone else has to say on the matter and try to find a constructive way forward for everyone for the sake of the project.
Nrms 17:03, 9 January 2009 (EST)
- Peter's the flavor of the moment but by no means acting alone or without support, this situation has nothing to do with Peter... we've all taken turns. EE's age has nothing to do with this either, a 16 year old ran the Spanish version nearly singlehandedly for ages, the Hindi version was launched by a 14 year old, and star articles have been written by 18 year olds... all who had the desire and took the time to watch how a wiki community works, and adjust their actions accordingly. At this point I feel it's better that we stop continually discussing this case, everyone get back to writing travel guides, and just know that that his leash is still quite short and will remain so into the distant future – cacahuate talk 20:49, 9 January 2009 (EST)
- Because this involves me, I do want to add my side to this. Quite frankly, Cacahuate, Nrms is right, but he leaves you out. You and Peter are truly the only culprates to not helping this and I agree with him in that you two step aside to people who will deal with me in a proper way. If you feel I should be banned, discuss it with another admin,okay? edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:48, 10 January 2009 (EST).
Peter's talk page
Remember how everyone agreed that you can delete comments from your talk page? That applies to Peter, too. If you can delete comments from your talk page, he can delete comments from his talk page. So if he deletes your comments from his talk page, leave it alone. Focus on something else. Gorilla Jones 18:30, 11 January 2009 (EST)
- You haven't got a clue do you? When I deleted my stuff:
- 1) at first I got temp banned for it and it got reverted
- 2) drew out a big kufuful
- 3) I had very valid reasoning for it
- 4) Peter (got to love him) recreates it in a new page
When Peter deletes only my stuff:
- 1) it has gone on for a long time
- 2) not once has anyone questioned it
- 3) has never given any reason that has actual proof, ie being abusive, which I have not done to his talk
- 4) even when the comments are super duper guper loper nice they are reverted
Maybe after reading this you can see my frustration. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:34, 11 January 2009 (EST).
- This rule is very simple. You are allowed to delete comments from your talk page. You deleted comments from your talk page. But if you can delete comments from your talk page, he can delete comments from his talk page, too. That's all there is to it. Gorilla Jones 18:42, 11 January 2009 (EST)
- My comments weren't deleted look at that retarded EEarchive. You all say tone is very important when doing a comment, well Gorilla use a better tone. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:44, 11 January 2009 (EST).
- Edmonton, you're doing this "why is everyone so unfair to me" thing again! While I don't necessarily agree with how Peter has handled the situation, are you just as much to blame. I hate to say this, but are you aware that you havn't contributed to guide articles in the past week or so, bar a couple of undoings of grafitti/vandalism, but your contrib page is full of comments on user pages? I like what you've done on the articles you have worked on and I hope you stay around to refine your existing work and expand on it with new destinations as you travel. However, your continued tales of woe are just as distracting as Peter's continual battle against you.
- I'm sorry if I sound like I'm being harsh, but I am not taking sides... You ahve seen my comments to Peter are just as full of frustration. However, I really do think you need to lay low... Keep doing what you do best which is contributing to the guide articles, try and keep out of Peter's way, and if you really must regale us with tales of woe, find a friendly user and use/abuse (wtih their permission!) their talk page (and agree a mutal system of clearing it out if that's what you want). And as you yourself keep saying... Keep smiling!
- Nrms 18:54, 11 January 2009 (EST)
- Hi Nrms, I like your neutrality in all of this. It does come in handy. The reason why most of the stuff in the week has been talk stuff is because I blanked my talk page and there was a big disagreememnt over that in which I commented on which got reverted which I reverted which amounted to what we got now. That's why. All because someone cannot respect my dear wishes. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:59, 11 January 2009 (EST).
- Also, with all the recent stuff going on I am not in a smiley mood but you saying that does make me a bit happy - which is the purpose of me doing that. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:00, 11 January 2009 (EST).
EE, please give serious consideration to undoing this recent edit on your user page. Peter has agreed to step back from this, you should too (i.e., stop posting about it). Shaund 20:28, 11 January 2009 (EST)
- Well I want to make it clear. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 16:00, 12 January 2009 (EST).
Your recent edits
- I believe your user page constitutes a personal attack. Please make changes address the issues and actions and not the people.
- Your threats made to revert comments by others in revenge are clearly inappropriate.
- Comments ended with "or I will crack", are clearly inappropriate as well as threatening and abusive. Please withdraw them. --Inas 20:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Welcoming new users
Hi EE, as we've discussed several times before, would you mind not welcoming new users? I'm not going to repeat the reasoning. I'm sure you can see how this would look provocative in light of current events – cacahuate talk 21:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- No no I see where you are coming from. I will put it to a halt. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 23:15, 12 January 2009 (EST).
Routeboxes - Banff
Hi EE, a little while back I raised an issue on the Talk:Banff page about whether it should be a control city between Calgary and Vancouver for the routeboxes. It's not a big city, but it gets something like 4 million visitors each year (about as many as Calgary). I think it should be a control city on the Calgary-Vancouver route, but I was wondering what you think before I did anything. Shaund 23:43, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- Yeah I agree. It is a humongous tourist place and gets tons of visitors. It would be more of a hub than Kelowna or Osoyoos or something. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 11:00, 13 January 2009 (EST).
User ban nomination.
I'm not trying to suppress your opinion. Far from it. You are welcome to create a section, and state your piece, or opinion or anything else. In my opinion that would be far better than tagging some lines on the end of everyone else's responses, which disorganises the process, and does you no favours. There is no benefit to anyone in stringing this out. If you really want to make a proposal, think about what it is, and put it in writing. --Inas 19:24, 13 January 2009 (EST)
EE, you mentioned that you have "some ideas". Is there a reason you're not sharing them? JYolkowski 19:46, 13 January 2009 (EST)
- J, I already said why. Re read some of my earlier postings. It states if I share ideas it will assume I stand by them, which I don't necessarily think so as well as I want to see if there is any more along with if there is more opinions, I might get stuff from that. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 21:41, 13 January 2009 (EST).
- Just to make one thing clear, I didn't revert anything, I just moved stuff around to make things possible to follow, a short look at the diff would have told you so.... --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:50, 14 January 2009 (EST)
One month voluntary wikibreak
You have been asked on Wikitravel:User ban nominations whether you would accept voluntarily taking a one month total break from Wikitravel. Your options are:
1. "Yes", I accept the voluntary one month cooling period, during which time I will not contribute to any Wikitravel article (content or talk), under any name or anonymously (which can easily be traced to you through the logs).
2. Anything else, or no response within 24 hours, which will be taken as "No".
I strongly suggest that you accept: it will gain you respect and make it easier for you to come back. Jpatokal 00:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)
- Just one last thing, look at the page. 184.108.40.206 00:27, 15 January 2009 (EST).
I'm not sure what to tell you.
You should know the following, but I'm going to repeat it all anyway.
The EEarchive was created to circumvent your repeated insistence on removing content from your talk page.
Now, I realize there is a lot of embarrassing stuff in there. But it was almost all of your own doing. You are the one who had to be repeatedly reminded of things that you'd been told before. The archive is there so that people can point to it and say "See, you were already told not to do this."
That said, I've recommended deletion on the deletion page. Contrary to Ryan's "speedy" keep, I don't think the discussion at Wikitravel_talk:Deletion_policy#Blanking_talk_pages reached any sort of consensus, clear or otherwise. I see no reason to keep the archive as a page when its contents are readily available in the page history.
Now, the root of all this was your constant trolling for attention. I don't mean "trolling" in the sense of being intentionally antagonistic, but nonetheless you annoyed many contributors to this site by literally begging for people to recognize your efforts and answer your questions. Begging. And when you were told that you needed to calm down and just let things happen at their normal pace, you seemed unable to follow that advice. In fact, you seemed unable to follow any advice given to you.
Do you honestly still not understand why many contributors got fed up with your behavior and attitude? Do you want me to go and find specific examples to explain why people didn't care for your actions and tone? I could do that, but you wouldn't like it, because then it'd all be here on your talk page.
You want to know why you were treated poorly and others have not been reprimanded like you have. The reasons are multiple and complex. Some of it has to do with longevity and experience. Peter and 2old and others have invested many, many months of work into this site, and they have demonstrated repeatedly the ability to collaborate with others in constructing some darn good travel guides. You have not; you came in and, although you did some good work, you demanded attention, demonstrated a complete lack of patience, and seemed to lack the capacity for cooperation. You immediately got off on the wrong foot, and you failed to establish a record of cooperation and collaboration. In short, other contributors have earned their right to be a little ornery at times.
Does that entirely excuse their behavior? No. But eventually everyone's patience runs out, and several people decided they weren't going to deal with your behavior any more. I would greatly prefer if they weren't rude about it, since they have been ridiculously rude, but from their point of view, you started it, and they are simply responding in kind. To their point of view, you were rude by coming in and not following the rules and norms of this site, and so their rudeness to you is justified.
I don't agree, but reasonable people can disagree.
You were told that you could be a valuable contributor if you just calmed down, followed the rules and culture of the site, and worked on writing travel guides. But you couldn't even do that. You couldn't even agree to a voluntary wikibreak without conditions. Why not?
I can't answer that question. Only you can. Maybe when you answer that question, the answer will help you grow as a human being.
-- LtPowers 15:54, 28 February 2009 (EST)
- Thanks LtPowers for taking the time to write. I have already admitted I've done wrong and it has been at the fault of my own, but this site does not need to constantly remind me of it. Can they not move on? Seriously. Thank you about the consensus, there never was a consensus about it. I seriously think Peter just did it to punish me for not doing things his way. I don't think there will be consensus until I actually agree to something, and I have offered compromise. I think some people should know I don't see feeling unnappreciated (which I have done on instances) as trolling or anything or attention seeking. That's just how I feel. And I know when I say that, you guys go back to, yes you've created a great travel guide on Edmonton blah, and I think that's where you think I need attention. I've had many questions on this site. Is that so bad? I just want to make sure I get things right and sometimes I just want opinions. I understand why people would have been annoyed and angry with me earlier, but come on now? Seriously, I think people need to get over it. Time has passed and stuff, and I think it's time to 'forgive and forget'. I came back hoping to have that, and a clean slate with Peter and everyone else, and if they expect me to change, the least they can do is try to do the same. Obviously that hasn't happened. Just because 2old contributed here a while ago or whatever does not give him the right to stomp all over me without concequences. Every little thing I do, I'm ridiculed, now Peter and 2old are smart about it, cause they're rude in less obvious ways. I am impatient, deal with it. I'm sorry, it's one of my qualities. The claim that I started this is crap. I'm not pointing the finger at them either. I think in a way it has been both ways. Although, and I said this a long time ago, had they been nice at the start of all this, I would have reacted a lot nicer. The only time I would have ever been mean is if someone pissed me off, in there someone else started it. I'm not saying it's Peter, Cacahuate, Ryan, Jani, 2old, or anyone else. I'm just pointing it out. I'm glad you see that well, they are out of line. Why has nobody but me stood up and told them to stop? I can't do it myself, I'm still seen as a newbie in their eyes. I could care less what they think of this, but they are so rude and selfish - that is Peter and 2old. I could care less if they created fabulous travel guides - it doesn't excuse anything! You think they collaborate well? How about collaborating with me? Not so good at that. I'n my eyes they're terrible at interaction with others on the site, they've just all formed an alliance of sorts so nobody excuses it, but I see it. Not to mention a big root of the problems I've had is lack of communication. Somewhere in one of the pages, it slipped that Sertmann and other Administrators had discussed offline "how to deal with me" and that was to totally ignore. Fine. You made your decision. But, hey, a heads up please? That would have saved all the reverting and everything. I did nothing wrong, yet Peter consistently banned me which didn't help my image. I had every right to make comments in Peters talk page, and to revert it or ignore it, is out of line. I appreciate all your help and I hope you can help in the future. I like how you see both sides very well. I know I did wrong, I know. They can't even admit they were wrong. I have created chaos, but so have they. Thanks so much! edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 19:55, 1 March 2009 (EST).