Difference between revisions of "User talk:Edmontonenthusiast"
Revision as of 20:58, 28 February 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'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)
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).
Copied from my talk page:
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)
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)
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 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)
When Peter deletes only my stuff:
Maybe after reading this you can see my frustration. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:34, 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)
Your recent edits
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.