User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Complaint about a possible sock

Hello EdJohnston. Thank you for your advice. I want to file it at WP:Sockpuppet investigations, but i don't know a lot about this process. Can you help me what should i write here exactly? Toroko (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to the WP:SPI page, and fill in the box called "Start an SPI case WITH a CheckUser request". In the box, you should enter "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aradic-es". Then hit the submit button and try to follow the instructions. Include the names of any IPs which you think are the same as him, and give your reasons for thinking that. You could copy the same information you used at ANI, but make it complete so that the reader does not have to do a lot of searching for the details. After you've saved the form, let me know, and I will go through it to be sure everything is there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I made it. Toroko (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Toroko. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, presumably 195.29.221.170 is Aradic-es' sock. I mentioned the edit warring. Toroko (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

More to it than just a simple COI at Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois

Hi Ed, Can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Philbox17_and_his_three_pairs_of_socks and see if there's anything you can do about it? Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Responded at ANI, semiprotected the article and commented in the sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Frmatt (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Albanian Souliotes"

This is unbelievable. --Athenean (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider tagging it for speedy deletion as {{db-g6}}. Indicate in your edit summary that a cut-and-paste fork of an existing article, possibly created by mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

user gu1dry and myself (the 3RR report that you were involved in)

As the admin who stepped in and tried to resolve this without blocking either of us (thanks) I would like to ask for your input on the current state of the article.

It was fine for almost a week, I provided citations to back up my edit, contributed to the talk page and gu1dry seemed to agree that with citations, my edit should stay - for almost a week.

Now he is stating that the model I am talking about "does not count" - and all I see is a production model car, that does not happen to be sold in every market.

I don't want to get dragged into another edit war, so could you take a look at this for me, thanks 119.173.81.176 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The auto tranny is only available for the A-Line, which I have created a subsection for, so therefore it does not belong in the main infobox of the article. The A-Line is not part the main production but a special variant of the STI. The entire article is like this & would appreciate that stop making disruptive edit that go against the rest of the article. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Shall we continue this on the article's talk page? I don't want to fill someone's talk page with our drama, I only want to ask for an outside opinion. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to admins to take you through the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, you have to do it yourselves. Anyone who continues to revert beyond this point is at the mercy of the system. The most logical result is that both parties would be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:216.234.60.106

This IP is requesting unblock. Can you please have a look and deny or fulfill the request? Thanks! -- Luk ^talk 10:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Celebration

I know I was wrong for the last rollback usage. I am extremely sorry for that. When I realised that the IP had actually added a reference, I put it back up. However, the 1RR I can accept, only if it excludes blatant vandalism. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also if you could please elaborate on the 1RR proposal a little more clearly? Like suppose if I see someone adding any unsourced chart or rather WP:BADCHARTS, shouldn't I remove that? Or will that construe under 3RR? Also, I melieve I can add information as I choose, if anyone disagress I believe I have the right to discuss with that user. Does this come under 1RR? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only exception to the 1RR would be for vandalism, or in general, for any exceptions that already exist under WP:3RR#Exceptions. When you are adding brand-new material to an article which has never been there before, it is not a revert. No problem there. If someone removes the material for any reason, you would be reverting if you then decide to put it back. You would be free to discuss any of this on the Talk page. If your argument is persuasive, other editors will probably do as you advise. Or, if there is a stalemate, you can follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ADditions of WP:BADCHARTS to articles are supposed to be reverted or undid as per WP:CHARTS, however 1 revert per article would be enough I believe? Also, sometimes IPs may add any comment which are completely unsourced or may infact be not at all be related to the article at all. What about that kind of revert, or removing such unsourced additions? One eg is this addition where the article itself doesnot exist at all. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you agree to the 1RR restriction you can do *one* revert per day of an article for any reason. If you do so because of a chart guideline, you are free to do so, but it's not exempt from the edit-warring rules the way that vandalism would be exempt. If you think the IP was trying to *damage* the article, it is vandalism, but what you are talking about does not sound like that. These are just well-intentioned but incompetent people. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I know its 1 revert /day/article. Im clear about that. But what if a user continues to add, suppose something defamation or badcharts inspite of being explained? I won't revert then, but shall I report to ANI? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you see any unsourced defamatory information (about a living person) being added, take it out and mention WP:BLP in your edit summary. This will not count as a revert for edit-warring purposes. If the editor persists, open a complaint at WP:BLPN. If it's truly horrible and needs quick action, bring it to WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As Ed notes, for defamation, that falls under WP:BLP. If it is truly a WP:BLP issue, that's exempt from 3RR rules already. I'd be careful claiming that exemption, and be extremely certain that everyone would agree that it's a BLP issue. If it's a WP:BADCHART issue, just drop a note on my talk page and I'll respond appropriately.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Kathryn NicDhàna's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If these issues are addressed and if Kevin can take care of any WP:BADCHART i don't have any problem accepting a 1RR till 31st October. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Albania

Hi Ed, how is it going?

First of all, let me thank you for your contribution on Albania/Kosovo related articles.

I need some help on WP:WikiProject Albania, and I came to you because you're an experienced editor and have been active lately on Albania-related articles. According to Category:Albania_task_force_articles, there are 1009 articles tagged with WP:WikiProject Albania. Using Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Albania_task_force_articles, I can see recent changes but only for talk pages, no article changes. So, my question is: Is it somehow possible to track changes on these articles tagged with WP:WikiProject Albania, in a centralized way, something like Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Albania_task_force_articles?

For WP:WikiProject Kosovo, I'm subscribed to it's public watchlist to track changes, using RSS feeds. I've started something similar, a public watchlist on WP:WikiProject Albania too. But the problem is that, I'll have to find those 1009 articles and to add to that list. The other problem is about synchronization between new articles being tagged with WP:WikiProject Albania and the list.

If you can help me on this issue, I'd really appreciate it.

Thank you. kedadial 06:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Block on 81.70.102.204, re List of Jewish American entertainers

Just a quick thanks for this block, [1]. Apart from the given reasons, this editor was making edits that were an unusual amount of work to fix, adding lots of material to an article that's already 259 kb long. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sora Kake Girl vandal, take 3

This time, editing from 121.185.27.53/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). A search on all contributions from the /16 range shows that he's still the only activity across the whole range (do an in-text search for "2009-08", "2009-09", and "2009-10" to quickly find all recent contributions). After all this, he shows no indication of stopping his behavior, and since he's the only one from this range, I wouldn't mind seeing an indef block with talk page editing disabled (I just finished deleting a bunch of his user talk pages that he created with the same garbage he's been adding to articles). Also, if you remember correctly, the last time he showed up, I said I was going to attempt to contact the owner of the range - I never got any response back from them. Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this search using Soxred93's CIDR tool. Do you see many edits from the last thirty days that are vandalism? You mentioned a /24, but that range does not seem very active at all. Perhaps there is too little vandalism here to bother with? EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my haste then, I'm simply getting tired of seeing this stuff passing through my watchlist. Looking through the last 50 edits from the whole /16 range, though, the only one that doesn't look like it's from this guy is this one on Dongdaemun Market (but it still looks like it could be borderline-unconstructive, to me at least). On a semi-related note, Mickey's House of Villains has had at least one pretty persistent vandal in the past, but I didn't review its more recent history, so I don't know what's up with it now. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Content flags on Triple Goddess

Septentrionalis has tagged the article and section again, but not saying where in the article or section the problem is, so that it could be corrected. Last time his sole complaint was a talkpage dispute over talkpage claims that appeared nowhere in the article. This time he posted nothing about the tags in talk at all — which the tags themselves expect, since they point to the talkpage. Here he says he tagged as a way of bowing out, which suggests that he doesn't intend to discuss the matter at all, leaving no way to "resolve the dispute" and lift the tag... in fact, leaving no dispute. So what is the point of the tags, and why should they be left on there? (Note, this is a rephrase of my comment to him on the talkpage, to which he has made no response.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

3 revert comment

Hello. You left a message on my talk page mentioing that I am "over" the 3RR. I'd appreciate it if you took another look. There has been discussion on how to word a certain section that we have been working with. Up until just recently we have been adding various cites and changeups. Recently I had one change outright reverted which I in turn reverted after disussing. It happened one other time where I was reverted and after discussing it reverted again. That makes 2 reverts I made one to the user AussieLegend and one to a sockpuppet from his same area. Would you please have a look and if you find that I've only made 2 reverts, remove your warning from my talk page. Thank you much. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for fixing the issue on my talk page. Have a good one. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet activity at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Also, I have no idea how to pursue this but it strongly appears that the above mentioned AussieLegend is using a sock puppet to get arround 3rr. Would you look into that? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you were following up at all, but now there's a 3rd ip sock puppet doing the reverts. I'm done for today though. Thanks again for checking into it. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for three days. This action is not directed at you but at the brand-new IPs, who do not participate on Talk. I hope that you will at least consider the possibility of creating an account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out to the IP, after he made the bad faith allegation on my talk page,[2] the IP is obviously not me. The WHOIS information that he provided points to somebody in Melbourne, about 1,000km south of here. As I then pointed out on his talk page, in response to this post, I can log on and off as much as I want and not get a new address because I have a static IP. Strangely, of all the posts I made on his page he chose that one to delete.[3] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. :) Thanks for your speedy intervention, Ed. I was unsure of the next steps to take. --0nonanon0 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox isn't the only thing I've been working on in various articles. I've been fixing different articles, expanding stubs and things like that. I truly believe that I have been doing constructive work, and it is difficult to do when I have someone reverting everything I do. Look at the articles I've edited if you don't believe me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to propose how to stop the edit war at Pete Rose. Outsiders don't know which version is best, we just know that you two guys keep on warring. It is not up to admins to resolve the dispute. You either must agree to stop editing yourself, or say how you will negotiate for a workable compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am baffled beyond belief and at loss for words from what I am reading. I am not reverting "everything he does". He continues to claim that I am straight up reverting his edits when I have not purposely reverted any of the actual article part. I have only reverted the infobox edits because that is how every other retired mlb player infobox is and he continues to effect that.--Yankees10 21:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain how Wikipedia has given you the authority to decide which version of the infobox is correct. Can you link to a discussion on the subject? EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well what gives him the right? I am doing it based on consistancy with other infoboxes. And if you look at the talk page on Pete Rose pretty much everyone agreed on my style over his.--Yankees10 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The parts you proposed that were agreed with I have not disputed. For example, WWE hall of fame is not in the infobox. No one disputed my opinion on chronology, yet for some reason, you keep changing that. For that matter, I don't see why you insist on having the word "Selection" at the end of 17 X All Star. You nit pick on silly things, which is why I have a hard time taking any of your edits seriously.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as putting it in chronological order when a guy makes an All Star game 17 different years or wins a world series three different years. And why do you have to make comments like the last sentence it makes us even more far apart from coming up with a compromise. It just isnt necessary and solves NOTHING.--Yankees10 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also by saying im nitpicking, you are doing the same exact thing by reverting the edits back--Yankees10 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A better question is why do you find it necessary to remove the fact that Dave Kingman led the NL in home runs in 1982 from his infobox highlights? There is no logical explanation for that.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Because he also led the league in strikeouts, sacrafice flies, slugging %, on base %, and AB per HR numerous times. Should we add all that to and make the infobox take up half the page. So thats why I remove when a player leads the league in something.--Yankees10 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You also abuse the BY template way to much. It is not intended to be linked on to every single date in a baseball players article, especially the year they were born.--Yankees10 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there ED, VASCO here, hope all's fine with you,

Just to let you know i reported PARARUBBAS (and his 16th sock!!) at the proper "location" (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas), if you could "drop in a word" it would be interesting.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination)

Hi, EdJohnston. Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3#User:Doncram and User:Polaron reported by User:Elkman (Result: )

In response to your query on my talk page (although I see you've also followed up with Acroterion, on whose talk page future discussion ought to occur): The 1RR rule the you suggest is a good idea (it even could be limited to topics related to NRHP historic districts), although I believe Acroterion tried it before, but had limited success. At some point, some sort of sanction may be needed to make it stick. --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing "not" at AN3?

You wrote: "Unbiasedpov was the first person to move the Godhra train article, and he should have continued to move it after it was clear that the move was contested." I'm pretty sure you meant "should not have", but you're the only one who should edit that. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Template protection.

Last night, you protected {{Infobox SG rail museum}}, due to a discussion at WP:AN3. Thank you for this. I was wondering if the same protection could be applied to related, currently unprotected, template {{Infobox rail museum}}, which has suffered the same series of reverts? As {{Infobox SG rail museum}} is simply a wrapper around {{Infobox rail museum}}, any edits to the unprotected template would be just as effective as editing the protected template. Thank you for your time. WuhWuzDat 16:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I hope you guys realize that you are not setting a good example for the rest of us. If you are willing to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, feel free to ask for assistance. It would be ridiculous if admins had to end up full-protecting everything to do with reporting marks. Sanctions on individuals would be more likely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the problem needs more discussion, and fewer reverts. It has been suggested many times that User:NE2 seek mediation on this matter, and his typical reaction to this is to drag one of his editing buddies, an acquaintance from other websites, into the fray. Unofficial mediation may have been stumbled into by a non traditional channel here, and I welcome further input into the situation. WuhWuzDat 16:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR

It seems a little impolite to me that a user insulted me when cited for 3RR and did not have the kindness to inform me. Note also that User:Urban XII removed the 3RR and civility warnings I left in his talk page, and that he came very close to 3RR on an unrelated article. When I asked him to take matters to the talk page, he answered as you may see at the bottom of Talk:Volksdeutsche. Feketekave (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. I have reverted my latest edit. Please notice that I understood the 3RR policy to refer to 3 reverts, rather than to 3 edits; I counted three reverts on both my part and on User:Urban XII's part, not counting, of course, the revert that you suggested I make to my latest revert. Please be so kind as to clarify this matter. Notice also that I did not claim the other user had already violated the policy.

Please notice as well that I have tried and am trying to obtain agreement in talk pages. Feketekave (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. See WP:REVERT for details of what constitutes a revert. In practice, if your edit winds up removing any material at all from an article it usually counts as a revert. To avoid problems with Digwuren issues, try to find least one other person on a Talk page who supports your change before making a controversial edit on any topic regarding Eastern Europe. If an edit gets reverted, you should immediately stop for a full-length discussion rather than revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Thank you for the clarification; I appreciate your advice. Please notice that I have tried and am trying to have a full-length discussion in the talk page, and had started to do so before the warning. I provided a link to the talk page when I approached you as above. Feketekave (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreement to a 1RR

Hi Ed, I left you a message on my talk page. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment on Jacurek's Talkpage, which said user promptly deleted, pointing out that the user had agreed to limit self to 1r just 2 weeks ago, and look how well that worked out. WookMuff (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Gaunkars of Goa

Out of sheer curiosity, are you also his "Bocking" ADM? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See his block log for the name of the blocking admin. If you open the contributions list for an editor, you will be able to see a link to their block log. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome creationist editor

I have noticed a troublesome editor User:SRFoster making POV nonsensical edits to multiple articles, Ardipithecus ([4], [5], [6]), Al Franken ([7]), and Imaginary number ([8]).

He is not a very civil editor if you see his talk page. Can something be done about this user.

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design may be controversial but imaginary numbers are not. Any more of this and he should receive a standard 24-hour block for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, ID is not controversial amongst biologists, as biologists are universally against it Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That was just my feeble attempt at humor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Wrong version" BS response

I don't know how you got the impression that this is a matter for joking around. CraigMonroe deliberately violated Wikipedia policy by ignoring a clear warning and breaking the 3RR rule. He has now been rewarded by not only not getting the block that policy dictates he should receive, but by having the page protected on his preferred version. What does this teach him? That Wikipedia administrators are spineless and that acting like a bully will get him his way. I am incredibly disappointed with the way this turned out, and most specifically, with your attitude. As an administrator, you should be open to giving a straight answer to a reasonable question instead of making the situation worse with such an ignorant response. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Raise the issue with the protecting administrator, User:Bibliomaniac15. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the attitude with with you replied to my question and your failure to apologize. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed, do you see what I am dealing with and why I was forced to ask for admin assistance? By the way, as an Admin, do you have an opinion on the Chris Benoit issue? If so, post on the talk page. Anyway, have a nice day. CraigMonroe (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about a block evasion

Hello EdJohnston. Someone confirmed that the 78.2 IPs were Aradic-es. Look at this. Toroko (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser says that 195.29.221.170 is not him, and that's what concerned me the most. If the two 78 IPs resume editing, there could be reason for action. If 195 keeps going with his standard revert at Habsburg Monarchy, a long block for edit warring might be justified. Since he only edits a few times each month, two months would be the minimum worth considering. But a few times a month is not yet a big nuisance. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And Aradic-es' block evasion? Toroko (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin who closed the SPI case already gave his verdict that a block is not necessary. I am keeping an eye on Aradic's future edits to see if he is willing to follow our policies. If not, a new filing at WP:AN3 may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The 195.29.221.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP was already blocked in late September for 48 hours by a different admin. Since on October 12 he resumed adding his usual POV edit about the Croatian monarchy, the one that gets reverted by others every single time it appears, I have blocked the IP for six months. The block can be lifted if he will promise to obey the Wikipedia policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a nice person

The reason I was brainstorming in Gaunkers of Goa page is that I am a nice person and hate to see people in prison (and also because there are so few people in Wikipedia that know anything about Goa, which I seek to find references on). I do understand that people have to be in prison sometimes.

The main reason for writing to you is for further information on Google Docs. You mean there is a place we can type documents and letters for others to edit online? For example, if I am drafting a letter, can someone else access it through a password and help edit it? Or is it open for the public to see?

This information could be helpful to 1) use in daily life, 2) suggest to vandals that they go there to a specific document to see their writing appear on the computer screen. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Wikipedia has an article on Google Docs! All explained to me! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Try it out yourself. Open up http://docs.google.com and follow the steps to create a free account. I know you can create password-protected files; I assume you can make them world-readable also. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Point of information: This is NOT the Blocked Editor. Why should he create such an account? He seems to be an editor in Finland. So I do not understand why you're not addressing him directly? How about me asking you now to create such a special account for my benefit of observing your Wiki editing skills to see how easy that is? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, your comments are starting to be strange. Your advocacy of Gaunkars' cause seems out of proportion to any actual observations of his behavior. You are welcome to cite any diffs to show that he is able to edit neutrally concerning Goa. I plan to continue that discussion on Gaunkars' talk, so please make any reply there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My apology if my remark appears strange to you. I probably wasn't clear enough. I only wanted to know why talk question to you wasn't answered directly. Let me say again, I have no personal interests in the Blocked individual. Now I see that someone in Finland is defending someone in Goa. I assume s/he's also neutral. So there are two voices concerned. Doesn't that suggest that my remarks simply seek to benefit Wikipedia? We need good Wikipedians on board. No one has denied that this person has only been here since February 2009. So why not simply Restrict him from Goa related articles, and let him prove himself. What so strange about? Please explain, and I'll do my best to convince you that my request is extremely Reasonable. One of my fields of studies was Logic. So I hope I could explain myself better to you, if you wish. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be great to have a new editor who is an expert on Goa, if we thought he could behave well. A new edit warrior from Goa who wants to fight for the holy cause of the abused Goan people may not be an asset, as you can perhaps understand. Use existing edits to make your arguments, not potential future edits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt discography

So therefore, am I not allowed to even edit her article until October 20? I don't want to revert the edits, I just want to fix up the discography, which was my intention in the first place before this whole mess. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Make your proposal for what to do with the article on Talk:Linda Ronstadt discography. When I look around for people who might have an interest in the matter, I see that User:Koavf and User:TenPoundHammer have both edited the article in October. Leave them messages on their own Talk pages and see if they are willing to give their own views about your proposed edits on the article Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! =) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston

I noticed that you mentioned me recently. In response I would like to clarify that the discussion on the Atanasoff article has evolved. Sources are provided that Atanasoff's notability in Bulgaria is due both to his being a Bulgarian-American and an inventor of a world changing invention. Bulgaria was also the first country in the world to recognize Atanasoff's invention in 1970 by bestowing him with the Order of Cyril and Methodius, First Class, Bulgaria's highest scientific honour. This was done a full three years before a patent dispute ruling in the Honeywell vs Sperry Rand case. The point being made is that Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry is central to his recognition and notability in Bulgaria. As such, both his notability in the US and in Bulgaria are real and valid. Even if we are to assume that his notability in Bulgaria is a countrywide "ethnic boosterism" phenomenon it is still no less real. I would also contend that such an assumption would negatively stereotype an entire nation and thus it would be unethical. Thus my premise the entire time (2 year dispute whereby I took a rest from it for more than 1 year) has been that both perspective/reasons for his notability in each country be included in the article. I have even proposed compromises on three occasions to no avail. In other words, the perspective of millions of Bulgarians and their reasons for naming streets, institutions and monuments in his honour should not be ignored, especially in light of the fact that Atanasoff's is more recognized as a notable figure in Bulgaria than elsewhere. Again the sources already provided show this. Even his birthday is celebrated by the populace there. Thus please excuse me if it seemed like nationalist POV pushing on my part, but I believe that if you look into the case you will see that there are valid points on both sides of the debate. Thank you for your time, help and opinion. I hope evnetually you will change your opinion of who I am and what I do here as a Wikipedia editor.--Monshuai (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the source I wanted to use in the Thracians article has now been shown to be academic, published and peer reviewed by other administrators in the reliable sources/noticeboard. It is called, The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos. So, I was unfairly called a nationalist, even though my edit on the Thracians article was warranted while Moreschi was incorrect in deleting an academic source and in threatening me with a long block after I pointed out his inappropriate edits. What course of action should I take when an administrator threatens me about pointing out his error in deleting academic, peer reviewed work? Who should I speak to next? As far as I know the rules state that both editors and admins are accountable for their actions and neither is insulated from having their privileges taken away, especially when they use their power to intimidate and threaten those in disadvantaged (less authoritative) positions. Should I write emails to the admins I know? Thank you for your help.--Monshuai (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai is misrepresenting me here after a clear warning at 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC), please see WP:RS/N#fifelfoowarns. The source Monshuai brought to RS/N was an unpublished PhD thesis, and I located a work by the same author appearing to substantially cover similar grounds. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I am trying my best to work constructively with you on this issue. I was under the impression that we had come to agree that Dr. Aris Poulianos's written works are reliable since he is a respected anthropologist and a founder of the Greek Anthropological Association. I have asked you a few times now if you are willing for us to work together so that we can build on one another's expertise and present the full spectrum of academic information. I hope you will agree that we can maximize our productivity and objectivity by working together. Thus I welcome your criticisms, as I hope you do mine, as that is perhaps a way for us to build an editorial relationship herein.--Monshuai (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response

Nothing nefarious to note outside of a permanently banned user using socks to circumvent a block - this is the MO of User:Eleemosynary and has been for some time - the sub pages on socks and suspected socks go back a couple of years, since the original permanent ban. user:StephenLaurie was the most recent attempt at this over the summer. That was already subject to WP:SPI and the result was a permanent ban (see Talk Page). It would be one thing if these latest accounts were a fresh start under a new handle, but these new accounts have jumped right back into the same pattern of incivility, BLP violations and edit warring as the others.

I've no particular dog in the hunt outside of having watched this unfold for sometime now as a lurker and occasional editor. The suspicion comes from the strange similarity in fixations on specific articles (namely Mark Levin, Mark Simone, Marshall Slyver, Mindy Kaling). It's pretty obvious if you check out the history and the fact that a brand new account jumped right into these articles with a fascinating understanding of Wikipedia rules and prior edit wars on these topics. If it looks like a duck...

I've seen this play out before, so just thought I'd chime in with the relevant links and my suspicions for anyone who has the time and patience to press for a SPI against the latest two socks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.171.212 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User Jacurek

Despite this user agreeing to a 1RR, twice today he has edited the London Victory Parade of 1946 article in a way which seems very much like reverting: once he yet again removed the word 'claims' with regard to invitations to Polish forces; the second time he reverted to a version which was made by another editor but which does not say what the sources given actually say (i.e. the article says "almost all" while the sources say "all").Varsovian (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I did not revert twice[[9]]. First was just a regular edit[[10]]. In fact, as I promised, I'm being very careful not to revert twice on every article. User Varsovian is focusing on me from the very beginning[[11]] of his sudden appearance on Sept. 28 2009 and I suspect that this is his whole purpose[[12]]. He is constantly trying to provoke me into the controversial discussions or edit wars and if this does not work then he falsely accuses me of breaking my promise now. I keep asking him to leave me alone[[13]] but he just keeps "hitting me" over and over and over and now this false accusation. I feel very much harassed by him. Please check his edit history. In fact he is the one who is edit warring there[[14]], reverting other editor but calling my name trying to create impression that it was me who made the changes he reverted. Is behavior like this acceptable? Please review his edits on the article including the talk page as well as my edits to see that I DID NOT reverted twice anywhere since my promise. Thanks and regards.--Jacurek (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, thanks for continuing to be careful. Since you are following 1RR you might learn how to create WP:RFCs. Regarding Varsovian, I suggested that he try to avoid the articles you edit for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, this is very useful link. No problem, I will do what I have promised, it is actually good for me and keeps me out of potential trouble. As far as Varsovian, I'm not interested in going after him or proving that he in fact is not a new user as he claims etc, etc. I just want him to stop focusing on my person. So far my impression is that since September 28 registration of account Varsovian the user was more interested in talking to me, making changes I would not like or finding something inappropriate in my behavior rather than constructive contribution. Since EE malling list "earthquake" I have been attacked by some strange IP's or new accounts few times already and I truly believe than Varsovian is an account created specifically to provoke me and get me in trouble. If I'm wrong and I will see that in a year or two Varsovian becomes actually active contributor with rich edit history I will apologize to him for what I'm saying now but today this is honestly what I think about him/her.--Jacurek (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Ed but I do feel that I am not 'bothering Jacurek'. I am attempting to stop him from editing incorrect information into an article, information which specifically does not reflect what the sources he provides say. So far he has accused me of being a sockpuppet [[15]], of editing in bad faith [16] (twice on that single page) and has called me a troll [17] and implied that I am a liar [18]. Is any of that acceptable under WP policies?

I have attempted to engage him in dialogue so that we can amicably resolve the differences which we have about this article and work together (I assume this is what is meant by "collaborative editing environment") but he refuses to discuss anything and continues to be incivil to me. I continue to assume good faith on his part but he continues to claim that I exist solely to provoke him [19]. He says "He is constantly trying to provoke me into the controversial discussions or edit wars" and that he wants me to "stop focusing on [his] person" but if you actually look at my history you will see that there is a grand total of one article which Jacurek and I have both edited, so much for edit wars. You will also see that there is only one discussion which I have attempted to engage him in: the one about that article! If I wanted to provoke him into edit wars, I wouldn't discuss anything: I'd just edit articles and refuse to discuss why I'd changed his edits. I'm not doing that, although he is editing my work and refusing to discuss his changes.Varsovian (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How about not posting anymore messages on my talk page, stop accusing me of the things I have not done (see your very first message here) and building some edit history to start with? I did not ask you to copy this message to Ed into my talk page[[20]] did I? And just to let you know, I will take everything back in a year or two if I'm wrong and will apologize to you but for now your actions speak for themselvs. And I'm not the only one who thinks that you are just a troll or sockpuppet (or whatever it is called) [[21]] (no offense please if you are not).--Jacurek (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that 'I think you're a troll but no offense if you're not'. Could somebody post that into the article about how to behave in a civil way? I also love how yet again you have reverted my edit of London Victory parade of 1946 and are yet again claiming that two sources say the precise opposite of what they actually say!Varsovian (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up

I've posted there. The content issue is a long complicated one. For months, Abu Kabir has been a stub about an Arab village. A little while ago, User:No More Mr Nice Guy decided it should also be about the present day neighborhood of Giv'at Herzl in Tel Aviv whose common name, he claims, is Abu Kabir. There is no source that says that Abu Kabir is an Israeli neighborhood in Tel Aviv, though there is one that says that "Abu Kabir (later to become Giv'at Herzl in the Israeli period)" ... There are a number of institutes in Tel Aviv known informally and formally as "Abu Kabir Institute for Forensic Medicine" and the like, and the word is used to refer to the "Abu Kabir Plain" as well as a new proposed metro station among other things.

But since Abu Kabir (the Arab village turned neighborhood before its depopulation in 1948) was destroyed. I see the Abu Kabir article as being about that historical place. Giv'at Herzl, the modern day neighborhood, may have sites in it known as Abu Kabir, but I don't think its boundaries are the same and its a different place with a different population altogether. Giv'at Herzl was founded(it seems) sometime in the 1930s and lay to the north of Abu Kabir, so it cannot be exactly the same place, even geographically speaking.

Anyway, its a long complicated story, both as far as content and editing histories of the users involved. A typical I-P mess. I'm sorry that I played a role in perpetuating it. While I do think my edits improved the article, I could have gone about it with more patience and kindness. Thanks for letting me know about the report. Tiamut^talk 20:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin Arthur Rubin, overdue for recall

Hi Ed, just a note about this much-blocked admin Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've seen him in action at a few pages now, mostly because we clashed at 350 (organisation) and he's stalked me to a few other pages to revert me with comments of "vandalism", only to revert himself when he realised my edits were completely justified. He's even called one of my edits "justified" yet "disruptive" at the same time. Nutty.

This relates in part to the Garth Paltridge article, in which Rubin has taken a decisive role. My interactions with him on this page and 350 (organisation) have been decidedly unpleasant since he is apparently not interested in a quality encyclopedia, but rather in pushing his libertarian barrow. One example is the issue of the See also link to Global warming conspiracy theory on the Paltridge's page. I put the wikilink there since Paltridge makes some of the classic conspiracy theory accusations in his book The Climate Caper, including that it's all about world government, socialism, funding for scientists, etc. Classic stuff and so the link was completely, and I mean COMPLETELY appropriate. Alexh19740110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) predictably removed it with squeals of "BLP" and when I reverted, Rubin rushed in and reverted me, cheekily calling it "vandalism". Only then did Rubin look at the evidence and decide that yes, it was an appropriate link, and reverted himself back to my version. So predictably again, off went Alex Harvey (Alexh19740110) to like-minded Rubin's talk page to press his case for removing the link, and lo and behold, before too long Rubin is removing of the link again. And that's just some of the garbage editing coming from this "admin". I could go on with many other examples, including how he tried to merge-downgrade 350 (organisation) into the page Bill McKibben (because Rubin, as a self-proclaimed libertarian, is a disbeliever in the significance of global warming), etc.

This guy is the least admin-like admin I've come across in several years on wp. He blatantly edits to advance a POV, and shoots first and asks questions later. I don't have the time to make a federal issue of this at the moment. But I'm available if anyone wants my input for a recall drive. I see he frequently fights charges of edit warring with others as well, so it's not just me. ► RATEL ◄ 01:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your nomination of Arthur Rubin's Wikipedia article for deletion seems tacky and creates a concern that the AfD nomination might be based on personal animosity. The mention of cabalism in your comment adds spice but invites mockery. Better to try to work out an WP:RFC for the issues that are still troubling you at Garth Paltridge. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He's canvassing for delete votes via e-mail as well. I seriously, seriously doubt I am the only one he sent such a message to. Lara 03:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Lara. I didn't notice you being this supportive of him when you were complaining about his abuse of sysop tools, but I guess you see more upside for yourself in what you're doing versus helping me get rid of a self-promotional puff page about some minor academic who won a prize and got to be a co-author with some famous mathematician 30-summat years ago. Hey, good call. ► RATEL ◄ 03:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The deletion motion on his page is a separate issue. The page just shouldn't be there, and that occurred to me separate to this issue. Just some reading around this to show what a troubled history this user has (there's more where this came from, this is just a quick selection):

Rubin abuses sysop tools

Rubin uses sysop tools while blocked

Rubin threatens to use sysop tools in dispute in which he's involved

Desysopping motion of Rubin, declined

All in all, not admin material! ► RATEL ◄ 02:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• See what he's up to now at 350 (organisation). Are there no adults in charge here? The guy is a anthropogenic global warming denialist who believes so strongly in the issue that he joined a political party that rails against it, yet he is allowed to be an admin on wikipedia and edit war pages on this vital scientific and social issue? Helllooooo! ► RATEL ◄ 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Somalia Affair

Hi Ed! I thought I'd contact you since User:Sherurcij is at it again on the Somalia Affair article. Under the pretext that he has "consensus" (how exactly does one editor with no real arguments amount to "consensus"?), he has yet again reverted back to the version of the article only he was championing, although you specifically instructed us not to revert and to at least wait until dispute resolution takes place. He has also taken it upon himself to attempt to "stack the deck", so to speak, in the dispute resolution process by posting this entry on the Canadian Military History project, a project he himself is an active participant in. This is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Third_opinion, which makes it clear that third opinions must be neutral:

Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.

I have therefore undone that self-serving post, and re-posted an appeal for dispute resolution at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, where neither Sherurcij nor I nor any of the other disputing parties have ties. That said, can you please insist that this editor play fair? Middayexpress (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude, wtf?, you can't remove somebody else's words...please familiarise yourself with WP policies. Also, I am not an "active participant" on the Canadian military wikiproject - my contact with the group so far as I can remember is one discussion over whether it was OR to state that a Canadian sniper in World War II carried a gurki when we had a photograph but no text, to back it up, other than that I'm just on their mailinglist. Besideswhich, it hardly seems a conflict of interest...they would be the people best able to offer contextual comment on a Canadian military affair... and WP:DR says "Ask at a subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page. Usually, such projects are listed on top of the article talk page." Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Military History board is not what's the problem. What's the problem is your being a part of it, yet soliciting assistance from what are in effect fellow participants in that Project. Despite your protests above, this is indeed a problem, as these are people that in all likelihood have "previously had dealings with" you. That's not neutral, whereas my posting to the Content noticeboard where neither one of us or any of the other parties in the dispute have ties is. If a simple dispute resolution as opposed to an attempt at stacking the deck is your goal, then you honestly have nothing to complain about. Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned, pretty sure Dorosh is the only user I've had any conversation with - and that was over WWII gurkis...and WP:DR is to involve related Wikiprojects since they can offer proper context in helping...is this perhaps better suited to some other forum than Ed's talkpage? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This talk page post didn't necessitate a "forum" until you butted in. And if you insist on attempting to recruit other fellow participants in a Project you yourself are a part of, do not be complain if folks from the Somalia Project make their way to the article as well. Middayexpress (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Both the CMH project and the Somalia Project are fine. There is nothing the matter with Sherurcij going to CMH, and Middayexpress's criticism seems inappropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit "war"

Takes more than one person for an "edit war," and I don't see you jumping all over the other participants. Talk to me after you've scrutinized Threeafterthree and Soxwon to the same degree. IndyObserver (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My warning stands; please pay attention to your own editing. As a brand-new user (October 11) who seems to have no interests besides the Fox News Channel article, we expect you to make extra effort to follow our policies. If you continue to edit this article with no regard for consensus, you can be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And my comment stands, too! I don't care how often you warn me if you're not willing to apply the same standard to everyone. Soxwon and Threeafterthree both edit warred and ignored the talk page (the latter has thrown literally nothing but insults at me), but you and your fellow administrators have done nothing, not even given a warning. I ask for others to look at the situation and am ignored, I suppose because counting to four reverts on one hand is easier than a more thoughtful investigation of a situation. The rule appears to be the opposite of real life, where those who are established and know the rules are held to a higher standard; indeed, that edit warring and personal attacks are okay for more established users. IndyObserver (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

blocked 24 hours, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:IndyObserver_reported_by_-_Barek_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_-_.28Result:_.29--Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:IndyObserver_reported_by_-_Barek_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_-_.28Result:_24h.29 (48hrs)--Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

making Wikipedia look more user friendly

You can see that I said "goodbye" to Gaunkars of Goa on his/her user talk page so there is no intent to write more on that user talk page. By then, his/her block parameters where changed so that he/she cannot edit the user talk page.

However, you completely page protected it. This only serves as ammunition to anti-Wikipedia people who can point to this as evidence of heavy handedness. The additional protection serves no useful purpose that I can see. Nobody else can leave messages, even positive and helpful messages.

Consider removing the page protection. This request is to make Wikipedia nicer as there is no additional effect on the Gaunkars user.

Examples are always limited. But consider the case of a murderer in jail for life. Then the police burns his car, scratches his name off trophies from the school display case. Since the prisoner is in jail for life, he cannot use his car or trophies anyway but the added actions just make the police look bad. I like Wikipedia and don't want us to look bad. What do you think? Being nice during Deepavali is an added benefit. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless Gaunkars' attitude changes, he is not going to be unblocked. See the most recent notice at AN about this. He had twelve days since his original block to come to terms with our policies and agree to improve his editing, and he couldn't manage to do it. If he changes his mind, he can write to unblock-en-l. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your response seems to show that you completely misunderstand my comments. It is NOT about unblocking. It is about adding page protection when he is already blocked with the inability to even edit his/her own talk page may look like a sign of Wikipedia overreaction. If the user talk page is not page protected, that user still cannot edit the user talk page because their block has the added provision of blocking his talk page editing. Perhaps you should read the above 18:37 16 October 2009 comments again? Thank you. Happy Deepavali! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See this...11:37, 15 October 2009 RegentsPark (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Gaunkars of Goa (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Removing talk page editing privilege (continues to use talk page as a soapbox)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk • contribs)

User talk pages of indef-blocked users are considered a bit sensitive. It's not clear why there ought to be continuing discussion there when no action is in prospect. (Just as WP:RFC/Us that fail to be certified are deleted). Nobody who has commented on that page lately (including you, perhaps) has offered any comments that shed much light on why we should change our thinking about Gaunkars' editing history. You are not likely to persuade him to change, and so far you haven't persuaded any admins, so why is the conversation continuing? EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a compromise? Continued indefinite block and allowing user talk page discussion under probation sometime next year? Otherwise, the person is effectively banned without having the benefit of a community ban discussion. This will make them even more angry, maybe even become a vandal. Furthermore, the unblock by email is out of sight, out of public scrutiny, which can be less than optimal at times. The reason for my interest is now there is a suggestion that Portugal may not have had jurisdiction to cede Goa. Very interesting. References are hard to find in my tiny city library. The history of Goa seems very interesting to me. At most, it would merit only a sentence or so but it could be a useful sentence. That user, despite being accused of soapboxing, may be in Goa and have access to be much better library. Either that or could you help me find references to learn about the situation? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Gaunkars has been blocked from editing his talk page by another admin, it would be difficult for you to converse with him. You could try leaving a message for him over at Commons, where he is not blocked. Unfortunately he did not enable an email address that would allow you to reach him directly. If you suspect that Portugal did not have jurisdiction, you could raise that question at WikiProject India. You could also look in the history of articles that Gaunkars edited to see what sources he wanted to use. See also History of Goa#After the independence of India and notice that voters in Goa did support a referendum to join India, with the annexation occurring in 1987. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful answer instead of a grunt saying "no". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed and Suomi, sorry for butting in. The line in the History of Goa article is a bit misleading. Actually the referendum was on the issue of whether Goa should be merged into a neigbouring state or be retained as a separate state. See Goa Opinion Poll for details. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll worry about that after Deepavali. Sorry, got to go... Even after coming back, it won't be a huge issue for me as I have no axe to grind, no pre-conceived soapboxed information that I demand to be inserted. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

TACA Costa Rica

Hi Ed and thanks for the answer regarding the controversy in the TACA Costa Rica article. However, let me explain why I believe the intervention of an administrator is required:

• The article name, as it is today is blatant WP:OR and justifies a swift reversal. The only hit a Google search shows (see here) is precisely here at English Wikipedia, so we are making up a name. Since the article is about an airline, and Wiki is showing a name that does not exist, I believe that this mistake should be corrected as soon as possible.
• Once the original article is restored, my proposal is to open a discussion to resolve the name controversy, as other names such as TACA/LACSA might be more appropriate, or any other name or solution reached by consensus.
• I do not think the strategy you suggested of reaching consensus, though desirable, will not work since there are only two editors participating, the one who did the name change without consultation, and me, and there is the OR issue.

I am also aware that reversal might not be the only solution, so your help in resolving this issue is welcome.-Mariordo (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that these airlines might have gone through some reorganization. The taca.com web site does not speak of LACSA at all. Orbitz offers to book you on LACSA without mentioning TACA. Do you think you can find any newspaper references? Does an entity exist any more called the 'national airline of Costa Rica?' It sounds like article content may need to be updated. Without finding references, it may be hard to resolve the move dispute. If you do find references, and it turns out that the published information is not consistent, the article could mention that fact. A change like this must have been mentioned in business publications and the national newspapers of central American countries. Evidence for the 'TACA/LACSA' name seems to come from an airline directory published in 2007, which is a while ago. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is why a throughout discussion is required (and I did Google in Spanish too). After the research I did my conclusion is that the LACSA article content must be kept until it joined TACA (circa 1987) and stop using its own logo (though the LR code is still used today), that happened circa 1998. Therefore, all content in the LACSA article must refer exclusively to operations until that time, ending with the fact that there are aircrafts using (and painted) the TACA logo operating LACSA licensed routes by Costa Rican aviation authorities, and using its LR code as these jetplanes were flagged in Costa Rica (that is all that is left of Lacsa, there is no separate administration). Thereafter, the existing TACA article already presents the evolution and current state of the associated airlines (there are four others besides Lacsa), and there is no need to have a LACSA/TACA article. Obviously these changes will have to be supported by RS. In a nutshell, the LACSA article must look like similar to the Pan American World Airways. And finally, because of the OR nature of the name change and the factual inaccuracy of the TACA Costa Rica name, I think that a reversal is justified, immediately followed by a discussion of the article content, proper name, etc., that could begin with my explanation above.-Mariordo (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your plan sounds logical, but it's a content matter, and unless the sky is falling, admins would be reluctant to intervene. If you want, you can advertise the issue more widely at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Undoing the move, by itself, would not fix all the current misinformation. The article content needs to be fixed. If the people who did the article move won't follow consensus, that would be something to intervene on. But so far the discussion has hardly started. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your collaboration.Mariordo (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My block

On the matter of your blocking me for edit warring, the consensus decision on the material I kept removing was that it was a violation BLP and I think an apology is owed. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the consensus was that it was probably OR and needed a better reference, not a BLP violation. Due to the dispute this would clearly fail the 3RR exemptions. However, it is interesting that involved editors are now attempting to change WT:BLP - and criticising the actions of this admin there. I assume Ed got a notification about this? Verbal chat 15:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is "probably OR" then its probably a BLP violation as the two are linked. And if it was "probably OR" then I was probably not guilty of edit warring. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations equals "harmful","libellous","smearing","hurtful", "contentious", "hearsay" ... about a person, it is not limited or restricted to biographies, but applies everywhere. None of the material in question is of this nature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That’s not what the policy says, it covers all material that cannot be sourced and is contentions in nature. Ignore it if you want but don’t selectively use it to violate it. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added my own comment at WT:BLP#Proposal to bring BLP in line with actual practice with respect to 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FEMA Article

Do not threaten me. As the comments posted are WITHIN WIKIPEDIAS RULES, I will return them. They are discussing the subject brought up for inclusion in the article, something that improves the article and is ENTIRELY within the discussion page rules. I have reverted it to its original form, seeing as QueenofBattle has ceased her edit war. However as you will be breaking Wikipedia policy if you revert it again I will take it as attempting to continue the edit war and report you for breaking Wikiedia policy. 203.171.199.156 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Aradic-es

Aradic-es started to vandalise the articles about Hungarian kings again. It seems, he can't stop adding the incorrect Croatian POVs. Toroko (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can he by his contributions Toroko is an SPA edit warrior. His only occupation (and obsession!!) is denying Croatia in personal union with Hungary:he simply displays it that Croatia has been conquered .he removes any reference that kings of Hungary were also kings of Croatia.So, please,do not pay attention to his essays!Añtó| Àntó (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR on massacres article

we're still doing this? Does this mean I can't make the grammar correction because that one dude (sock for Lysy? he's on a "wikibreak" and this new guy has the same single-quote talk page...) and now Pawel have reverted for no reason? [this is in regard to the first line, which the subject is 'massacres', being plural, so it should be were and not was; ie. "the massacres was" is obviously not correct]--Львівське (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You could just mention on the talk page that it needs correcting, if you are concerned that you might go over the limit. I am not sure that the last set of reverts was only about grammar, I saw two people who seemed to be reverting each other on that item. So at least one of them must have believed it was more than grammar. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

or it's that Pawel reverts everything I do regardless of content out of spite, and these two have shown they like to WP:OWN article's they are emotionally vested in--Львівське (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Report at WP:AN3

If the edits did not constitute as vandalism then why is it that the article is currently protected under the premise "Excessive vandalism: repeated removal of sourced material by ips not participating on talk page"? Also, I should point out that the first 3 edits by the anonymous IP address were unexplained removal of sourced content, which definitely constitutes as vandalism. I guess your attack is an example of exercising bureaucracy over common sense. -Reconsider the static (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Check WP:3RR#Exceptions. In general, removal of sourced content is not vandalism but is an action in a content dispute. (The other editor sincerely believed that the article was better off without that material). If you restore content that was removed in a content dispute, your action is not immune to the limits of the 3RR rule, and you could be sanctioned if you make four reverts. Though people may give you some slack for not knowing the policy, please don't continue this practice in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek AE

Since you seem to have made an 1RR agreement with Jacurek, I would appreciate a confirmation of that agreement and further comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jacurek. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Pomerania (1945–present)

Hi Ed, yes of course, I agree not to contribute to the article for a week. Breaking my self imposed restriction was total incident since I have made a lot of edits to that article. I do respect what I have promised to you. Please note however how closely I'm being followed by some editors since one have to study so much to actually notice that. I did not notice that myself and I pay so much attention not to revert twice at all times. This is what I dislike about the Wikipedia, often it is nothing else but the battle ground to "death". Anyways, I'm staying away from the article for a while, no problem. Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ed,... I keep looking at where I reverted... but the first revert as you gave as an example of reverting and posted on my talk page... I was actually changing my own edit[[22]]. I think I actually did not make any mistakes and I did not reverted twice... I'm so careful about not reverting now... I'm not sure if I'm reading that correctly but it does not matter anyway I will sill stay away from the article for a week no problem. Best--Jacurek (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed, could you also look at this[[23]]. This is ridiculous and are total lies. Is this o.k. when one does not like somebody's edits to fabricate story like that? I did nothing else but editing the article in a total good faith.--Jacurek (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation

User Jacurek seems to think [24] that in this post[25] you imply that I am a sockpuppet of Matthead. There is now an investigation of me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead and I would be most grateful if you could be so kind as to spare some time to post there as to any thoughts which you have regarding me being a sockpuppet. I have already agreed to any checkuser request which anybody makes.

I also note you say "Seems to be following Jacurek around." Jacurek and I have both edited a grand total of three articles: London Victory Parade of 1946 (Jacurek's repeated reverts of my edits were what prompted me to register for this account); Anti-Polish sentiment, into which Jacurek followed me and reverted my edit [26]; and No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron, an article he had edited just once before, on 13 Feb 2009 but within one hour of me posting there he had reverted my edit[27]. Perhaps you might like to reassess your statement as to who is following whom arround? I would be grateful for your thoughts on this point.Varsovian (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism and disruption

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.

Hoi Ping Chamber of Commerce Secondary School again

Ed, I know you are watching the page, but please note that the vandal has once again appeared at Talk:Hoi Ping Chamber of Commerce Secondary School, messing with the text only so that defamatory edit summaries can be left. Probably best have history erased back to this version. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

Hello Ed. Thanks for your help in past events. The block for anonymous users that you set in the article Middle America has expired. Immediatly after the expiration Corticopia returned to show once again that he's not willing to respect Wikipedia's rules. Check this and thanks again in advance for your help. Middle America (history) AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 12:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Every time your blocks expire, he returns to mock Wikipedia's rules. No need to say more [33], thanks in advance (as always) for your worthy help. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is concise. This editor blanks content without comment, and then whines when corrected. He then characterizes it as vandalism. Who is mocking Wikipedia's rules? 69.158.50.104 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnson, if you really think that your semi-protects are going to accomplish much, particularly given the apparent support they creed to the dilettante above, think again. 69.158.51.184 (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pawel vs. 1RR

I'm trying to keep out of the revert wars but still have to do my part to keep the bad faith edits out. I've reverted to the last acceptable version of the sub-section that was agreed upon by all participating parties in the discussion. Since then I've made a new talk discussion on it, hoping we can collaborate on making the section deeper but it's just been subject to reversion by Pawel. His picture of the pile of dead bodies was under dispute, he doesn't seem to care for the democratic process.

Here's 3 reverts he did on Oct 26th: 1, 2, 3

This is getting frustrating.--Львівське (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC) does alex undoing it count? --Львівське (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am forced to do this. Lvivskie, Gallasi and Bandurist removing text with sources. Its vandalism. I have provided additional reliable sources but its not enough. Please look here, here - there are 4 sources removed today, here, here Lvivskie. How can I edit Wikipedia? These people seriously violated the rules of Wikipedia. I will try to use 1 revert per day if they force me to do that. Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. The merits:

First diff provided by Pawel is just him and Bandurist playing with the wording with no reference to sources what so ever. In cases like this POV or NPOV is in the eye of the beholder. It's a tit for tat back and forth. Guys, find sources.

Second diff provided is a mix of bad behavior by both. Bandurist is restoring the phrase "significant number of Poles" with edit summary "see sources" but in fact a easily available link to the source is NOT provided [34] and when one checks the source there's nothing in there about "significant number of Poles". On the other hand, Pawel is restoring some text sourced to non Reliable Sources - and he's been told that by consensus of editors on talk. Specifically out of the "4 edit sources removed today", 2 are definitely non RS, one is border line (Siemaszko) and one I don't know about. Basically, it looks to me like both editors are mixing legit edits/reverts with sneaking in of stuff they shouldn't be sneaking in, and then they both use the excuse that the other has sneaked in illegitimate stuff in to revert each other and so it goes around.

Third diff is same as the second.

Fourth diff concerns stuff that is actually being talked about on talk and though I don't agree 100% with it's a mix of useful edits and a bit of being a little too bold. Aside from the somewhat objectionable edit summary, there's nothing wrong with it.

Let me repeat. Ugh.radek (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, first diff its deleting one paragraph of text (among other changes) with Motyka as source. Second diff sources are Siemaszko, Motyka, polish radio and Siekierka&Komański. 4 sources telling same thing, why it is not reliable. This is madness, becouse some Ukrainians afraid of the truth we should deny books Siemaszko, Siekierka recognized by historians as good and reliable source? Fourth diff is new prepared text of Massacres of Poles based on Motyka, polish historian recognized as pro-Ukrainian. There are no more reliabe source than he. Why is he removed without explanation? Even without one word against any possible mistakes? This is simply denying Massacres of Poles (similar to denying Holocaust). The newly created tekst is much better, contains exacts UPA orders and facts.--Paweł5586 (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Next vandalism by Bandurist, and one more.--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Threat and war edit by Faustian. --Paweł5586 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's something sourced to Motyka in the first diff then it doesn't have an inline citation - I don't see anything from Motyka being removed. In the second diff, yes Skekierka and Komanski and possibly the polish radio sources are unreliable - which has been said a dozen times already. So like I said above.radek (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Check this out Paweł5586 is demanding that unless information is blanked from an article he will continue placing POV tags on the article - see here. This article has an RFC which is obviously not going in Pawel's favor, so he is seeking to place a POV tag on it because he considers that the sourced facts that the subjects are antisemtitic extremists to cause "bias." How long will this guy's disruptions be tolerated?Faustian (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:User talk:74.160.132.223 requesting unblock

Hi EdJohnston. Looking back at some of my recent blocks, I can recall blocking a large number of JarlaxleArtemis socks around the same time. They were tripping the edit filter by directing personal attacks at poor Krimpet. I blocked the lot of them for three months. I think this just might be one of them. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 04:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Another admin has since done the unblock, assuming that the IP must have been reassigned by now. I added the user's page to my watchlist in case we were too optimistic about the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SOCK

Hi there ED, VASCO here, hope all's fine with you,

i bring to you this case, of evading socks: these three accounts, User:Marvingroves, User:Racheedmani and User:Wikusvandermerwe, apparently all from same "user", have been vandalizing FC Barcelona players' pages (inflating stats is a way of vandalizing methinks). What can be done?

Have a great weekend, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a {{uw-3rr}} warning for Wikusvandermerwe. Do you have evidence that the three editors are the same? Do you see them making the same changes to any articles? EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help, man. Regarding your doubt, almost pretty sure even with no checkuser: take a look at ALL three accounts' contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marvingroves, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Racheedmani and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikusvandermerwe): 99,999999999% operating on FC Barcelona players, inflating stats and/or stating players have played for their national teams when they have not.

Keep it up, nice Sunday,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikus should be blocked if he continues to change football articles with no explanation. The other two guys have not been active in the past week. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

ESPNsoccernet

• ESPNsoccernet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andrewponsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Andrewponsford, who you warned for edit warring on 7 October at User talk:Andrewponsford#October 2009, has continued to restore his unsourced personal opinions at ESPNsoccernet after coming off a 24-hour block for the same thing. Though I could block again for a longer time, it would be good to get an opinion from another admin about what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've given him a strong, specific warning. Best to make sure people understand what they're not supposed to do. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to the very heavy-handed approach taken by you two (thanks for the "strong, specific warning?"), I have not added a personal opinion and am not trying to voice one - except here now because I am frustrated by you both. My posting is very clear - what I have done is pointed out the recent factual errors (with links to prove this) that occur on the Soccernet website by one of their contributing editors. I am not making a personal statement as to what these errors imply, or use these errors to characterize their author, or even use an adjective in describing these errors.

I also would like it noted that my entries on this page are completely consistant with Wikipedia's own pages that demonstrate factual errors by journalists in similar fields who have made similar factual errors (see Tim McCarver's Wiki page - cites McCarver's error is discussing the "balk" rule, Don Cherry's Wiki page - cites Cherry's incorrect information on visors/Europeans, etc. - I could go on and on). My citing Soccernet's Chris Murphy's errors is absolutely no different and the way those errors are presented offer no opinion or bias - rather they are statement of facts.

Best to make sure people understand what is consistant with this website before offering out a cyber-talking to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewponsford (talk • contribs) 21:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Andrewponsford (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)andrewponsford

It is your personal opinion that ESPNsoccernet has made errors. The comments that you added do not belong in the article unless published sources draw attention to the same point. Please be aware you're on very thin ice, since the issue has been explained to you repeatedly and you continue to revert your own personal material back into the article. If you want to editorialize about the alleged mistakes of ESPNsoccernet, do so on your own personal web site, not in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion that these are errors - they are verifiable facts ex. Sami Hyppia plays for Liverpool (see the Wikipedia page on it) and ditto for the other points. They are not suppositions or opinions - they are facts and if you do not believe it, I will use the Wikipedia pages themselves are references that support the factual errors being made. If I write Canada is in North America, that's not an opinion, that's a fact.

What is ironic is when you wrote "thank you for removing personal opinion" (Oct 14), you wrote it for the identical version of the page that you are now trying to block me from re-asserting! According to your own viewing of the page, it was consistant with Wikipedia guidelines - yet now, having made no changes, it is not???

I will at this point ask for a dispute resolution outside of your auspices as there has been there is no consistancy in what you "approve" on the page and your claim that I am including personal opinion over fact could easily have been checked had you bothered to look at the facts and the factual errors I was highlighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewponsford (talk • contribs) 22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since your repeated comments suggest that you have not read WP:Reliable sources I don't think further discussion would do much good. If you were to read the policy, you would come across this passage: "..we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

Good day Ed. Another editor has been directing ad hominem comments at me here and on my talk page following what was a trivial, but heated discussion about qutotation marks and weasel words. What level do personal attacks usually have to escalate to before admin intervention can be sought? Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the article talk. Let's hope the nastiness at Talk:Cecil Rhodes was a temporary outburst. If not, it can be taken to WP:WQA. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I hope youse don't mind me butting in, but I have seen the above mentioned editor around before, and it seems that he frequently exibits rude behaviour, displays a lack of good faith and personally attacks other people. Just thought I would comment ... 124.176.69.145 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I assume the comment above from the IP user does not refer to me. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: The NPA warning on his home page was obviously posted by me (forgot to log on). Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

the other side of the coin

Dear EdJohnston: Thank you for your suggestion to move the discussion to a more appropriate place.

Let's just say that admins are allowed to block for violations of WP:NPA and you're not providing much of a reason to view your edits favorably. You can criticize someone you think is making factual errors without calling them a fool on an article talk page. Then you continue on their user talk, which is starting to look like harassment. You seem to be pretty good at removing warnings for personal attack from your own talk page. If you are hoping to avoid sanctions, the less said the better. An edit summary like 'fuck off' does come to the attention of the Recent Changes patrollers. You may move this entire conversation to your own talk page if you prefer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your summary of the situation is extremely one-sided, and incomplete. Given that you are an admin, I would have expected a more complete and more balanced statement.

I'm more than happy for anyone to give a balanced review of the situation and subject Socrates2008 to the same persecution that you are subjecting me to.

As I said to another editor with whom I discussed the matter:

Him: Thanks. But please when someone warns you to remain civil, don't delete it and say "fuck off." We recent changes patrollers see it.

Me: Generally I don't. But blind deaf hypocritical narcisists who pay no attention to anything but their own opinion tend to raise my ire, and I'm fed up with the fact that WP lets them get away with their arrogance but punishes the more reasonable editors who say: "Hang on. You're talking rubbish."

Him. I agree with that!

From my point of view, the situation is quite simple, and is easily verified by looking at the edit history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&action=history

• (cur) (prev) 21:41, 22 October 2009 Socrates2008 (Talk | contribs) (46,092 bytes) (→Sexuality: tag weasel words; rm editorial comment) (undo)
  • Socrates2008 decided to complain about "weasel words" in a quote - an ill-considered edit, because a quote is a verbatim copy of something.
• (cur) (prev) 21:45, 26 October 2009 Contaldo80 (Talk | contribs) (46,096 bytes) (→Sexuality: Who? Yeah - er Brown... Er, maybe worth reading the whole thing before putting your "helpful" tags in.) (undo)
  • Another editor pointed this out to Socrates
• (cur) (prev) 22:18, 26 October 2009 Socrates2008 (Talk | contribs) (45,972 bytes) (→Sexuality: Weasel words) (undo)
  • Socrates paid no attention. He neither assumed good faith, nor moved discussion to the talk page. He just reverted.
• (cur) (prev) 23:36, 26 October 2009 Contaldo80 (Talk | contribs) (45,958 bytes) (See talk) (undo)
  • The other editor, however, DID assume good faith, and DID move discussion to the talk page, and asked some questions to clarify the situation. (During that edit, he also split the quote over a paragraph boundary.)
• I responded to Contaldo's questions, confirming to Contaldo that his understandings were correct.
• Socrates started complaining and making irrelevant and inaccurate statements. i.e.
  • "The sentence starting "It is inferred..." was not quoted, nor cited so until you changed it with your last edit, there was no attrition making it clear who (other than a WP editor) was saying this. So it was a classic weasel statement - all it needs now is a citation to fix it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)"
• I responded to Socrates:
  • With respect Socrates2008, your statements are not supported by the facts. The version before your first edit is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&oldid=321349321. Reproducing that text: Brown also comments: "On the issue of Rhodes' sexuality... there is, once again, simply not enough reliable evidence to reach firm, irrefutable conclusions. It is inferred, fairly convincingly (but not proved), that Rhodes was homosexual and it is assumed (but not proved) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical. Neville Pickering is described as Rhodes' lover in spite of the absence of decisive evidence."[18] As you can see, the statement is/was both quoted and a citation is/was supplied. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• I subsequently noticed the splitting of the quote over a paragraph break, so I put the quotes around the break.
  • (cur) (prev) 00:27, 27 October 2009 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (45,959 bytes) (→Sexuality: missing closing quotemark) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 00:29, 27 October 2009 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (45,960 bytes) (and missing opening quotemark.) (undo)
• Socrates then proceeded to make more inaccurate and irrelevant statements, and clearly paid NO attention to good faith or good manners.
• I decided not to reply. Clearly, Socrates was paying no attention to anything other than what he wanted to.
• Contaldo80, however, (bless his little cotton sox), pointed out to Socrates that he had investigated both claims, and that mine was accurate and Socrates was inaccurate.
• Socrates continued to ignore reality, ignore good faith, and make easily demonstrable inaccurate statements.
• So, incredibly politely, and in minute detail, (and somewhat sarcasticly), I unambiguously pointed out to Socrates the inaccuracies in his statements.
• More politely, and without sarcasm, Contaldo80 also pointed out Socrates errors to him.
• Socrates then acknowledged to Contaldo that Contaldo was right and Socrates was wrong, but in the adjacent sentence said "Everyone is right" - Yet another inaccurate statement!
• So, I responded: Let's save the continuing inaccurate statements. "Everyone is right" - I'm afraid not. (Yet another inaccurate statement.) As has been pointed out to you several times, Contaldo and I are right; you are/were wrong. Yes, it is fine now, because Contaldo has restored the situation to the equivalent of what it was before you came along and made your inappropriate edits, your inaccurate statements and assertions, and your inappropriate comments. I find it fascinating that you are unable to admit that you made a mistake, and are unable to apologise. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• At this point Socrates proceeded to throw a temper tantrum, blame me for his bad behaviour, and started posting inappropriate and unjustified warnings on my talk page.
• Yes. I told him to fuck off.
  • As I said to the other party: Generally I don't. But blind deaf hypocritical narcisists who pay no attention to anything but their own opinion tend to raise my ire, and I'm fed up with the fact that WP lets them get away with their arrogance but punishes the more reasonable editors who say: "Hang on. You're talking rubbish."
  • Yes, it would have been better if I had chosen my words with more thought.
  • But I didn't, and what's done is done and can't be undone.
• "You can criticize someone you think is making factual errors without calling them a fool on an article talk page." - Yes, you are correct.
• "Then you continue on their user talk" - No. Did you read what I wrote on the talk page?
  • "You made a mistake. How about taking responsibility for your own actions, rather than blaming someone (anyone) else? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)" - Such a comment does not belong on the article talk page. It belongs on the user's talk page. That's why I put it there.
  • "Then you continue on their user talk, which is starting to look like harassment." - I disagree. I have explained why I put it on the user talk page. It has nothing to do with harassment. If it is "starting to look like harassment", then the person coming to that opinion has obviously not informed themselves of the situation.
• "You seem to be pretty good at removing warnings for personal attack from your own talk page."
  • Your point being?
  • It is my understanding that I am at liberty, and in fact "have a right", to do such things on my own talk page.
  • Your statement is NOT neutral, does NOT appear to assume good faith, appears to be dripping with inuendo that there is something "wrong" with doing something that I am perfectly entitled to, and I would say seems a rather inappropriate statement to have been made by an admin. Or have I misunderstood you?
• "If you are hoping to avoid sanctions, the less said the better." - The truth of the matter is that I am unimpressed by a system that persecutes one editor for one use of one inappropriate phrase, but ignores another editor who has performed, and continues to perform, a consistent series of inappropriate acts, and blames others for their own bad behaviour.

Now, let us move on to the IP - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.176.69.145

Fascinating. Just one edit. (i.e. the one above.) It looks like a sock to me. What do you think?

Also, it does not describe my behaviour. If you want examples of my behaviour, read the rest of the Cecil Rhodes talk page, or a representative sample of some of my other 15,000 edits, or read my talk page archives.

Pdfpdf (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody complains when editors participate in good-faith content disputes. My remark about your quick removal of the 'personal attack' warning was to remind you that you yourself appear to be sensitive to criticism. Yet calling somebody a fool on an article Talk seems justifiable to you. (The other party seemed to overlook how the quotation marks were used, so that entitled you to question his intelligence). EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Again, I don't quite follow some of what you are saying, you have not addressed much of the available information, and you have not answered a number of my questions.

Further, you draw some conclusions that I find strange and don't quite understand.

you yourself appear to be sensitive to criticism - I may well be "sensitive to criticism", but I don't understand how you came to that conclusion based on me removing inappropriate and false accusations placed by a person who continually makes false statements and ignores facts and evidence presented to him that clearly demonstrate that his statements are false.

Yet calling somebody a fool on an article Talk seems justifiable to you. - I don't understand how you got to that conclusion, either. 1) To be precise, I did not call him a fool. My statement was: "I must admit that I'm enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself." 2) I haven't given much thought to whether "calling somebody a fool on an article Talk seems justifiable". As it is not something I would do, thinking about doing it, and whether it's justifiable or not, is something of an academic exercise with no obvious benefit.

so that entitled you to question his intelligence - Actually, I wasn't questioning his intelligence at all. I was pointing out his stubborness in ignoring/avoiding the facts and the questions I asked. My final observations were: "I find it fascinating that you are unable to admit that you made a mistake, and are unable to apologise.", and "You made a mistake. How about taking responsibility for your own actions, rather than blaming someone (anyone) else?" There's no question related to intellegence there. Also, I fail to see how suggesting that he acknowledge the facts and apologise falls into the category of not assuming good faith.

This is particularly pertinent when you can observe only 10 lines above the accusation is the statement: "Dear Socrates2008: If the quotes are indeed not visible to you, then I apologise for my sarcasm and rudeness. (However, I must admit that I am sceptical ... ) Belatedly assuming good faith, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"

It seems bizarre to me that I said, "If I made a mistake, I apologise", whereas when the unambiguous evidence that he has made a mistake is presented to this person, his response is to accuse me of not assuming good faith. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell me please. Why are you giving me a hard time but ignoring Socrates behaviour? Pdfpdf (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD comments

Tell me about some of them and i will help you watch them. Almost every admin I know is reasonably careful, though they do use somewhat different standards. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Somalia Affair

Okay, my court-required patience is at its end ;) I wonder if you could take a look at Talk:Somalia Affair and unprotect the article now (or at least protect the revision with the manageable table and full quotes, if it must be protected - though I'd prefer unprotected so people can still collaboratively improve it.). When others have come to the talk page (I would say each of them have been majority-agreeing with me), Middayexpress has just been rude, throwing personal attacks against them. When I posted this screenshot, he alleged that my prntscrn button was biased and unfairly slurring him.

I would also point to Geo_Swan's argument, which was perhaps more clear and precise than my own, that "I think the New York Times example is a weak one, not really applicable. In instances where the profane person seems to have randomly picked an insult, and could have used a variety of alternatives, then that insult is a good candidate for being paraphrased, as in the NYTimes example. But when a soldier, sent on a long mission to help Africans, in Africa, Africans that a particularly vicious racist would call a "nigger". Why shouldn't we regard that as a whole different ball-park? He didn't call them "morons", or "homos", or "motherfuckers". He picked a specific insult. Sending poorly disciplined soldiers who hated "niggers" on a peacekeeping mission in Africa was a mistake.", in defence of maintaining the exact quote. In addition, I brought up the point that 17 books written on the subject used the "nigger" quote, it was largely synonymous with the scandal in many Canadians' eyes.

In light of all of this, and my nearly-infinite patience in being repeatedly clotheslined by a certain borderline-abusive editor calling me a racist and nominating all images in the article for deletion on the grounds they were uploaded by a racist, and then actually deleting my talkpage contributions to the Canadian Military History wikiproject, etc...I would appreciate if this could be brought to a somewhat speedy end. In return, I will send $1 MILLION CSA AMERICAN DOLLARS to your paypal. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 12:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Though the table has been disputed, the fiercer debate has been about how much of the actual bad language of the soldiers should be quoted in detail. Some of the talk comments may in fact be leaning your way, so you might consider making a draft in your user space, and asking on the article talk page for opinions pro and con. I assume you would be willing to bargain over how much detail to include; there could be a happy medium that most editors would support, even if you can't please everyone. If consensus agrees on a draft, then there would be no need for continuing the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Posted a 'draft', suggesting we remove one of the three uses of the word. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

PROD of Diabetic Hypoglycemia (journal)

Hi, my prod was not based on the possible COI, but on the fact that this is a very young journal and has not even had time to become notable. It may become notable later, but there is no way of knowing. However, if you think you can make something interesting out of this (sourced and non-promotional, of course), feel free to go ahead. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Redking7

Thanks for the info on his sock longevity. Jeepers, the truth sure hurts. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reg. Anti-Shanar riots of 1899

Check out Talk:Sivakasi riots of 1899#Naming issues. Thanks.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 06:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tuality Forest Grove Hospital

That was one of my early articles and definitely needs some work done, so feel free. The Portland Business Journal likely has some more info to expand it some as well. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My user and talk page.

I was wondering if they could be unprotected. I haven't made a bad move since my third block February 10th, 2009. - Zhang He (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Zhang He. Those pages are only move-protected. User and User_talk pages are not usually moved anyway. I hope it is OK to leave them as they are. My own user talk is move-protected to deter vandalism (e.g., someone moving it to a nonsensical name). EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That's fine, then. - Zhang He (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Systems science

Hi, I wonder if you could take a look at the discussion on the Systems science article. A new editor wants to force the article definitions in a table and a listing of (just) five founders in a bullet-listing. Now I don't want to own any article, but I have made a considerable effort to get most of the 2000+ articles in the field of systems science in one consistent standard, and I like to keep it that way for now. At the moment the starting "editwar" overthere is very distracting. If you think otherwise please let me know as well. -- Mdd (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the IP's talk page. It's hard to think of a related wikiproject that you could go to for outside opinions. If you can find no other way of bringing in fresh eyes, WP:Third opinion can be tried. They may have a bit of trouble grasping the issues if the article is very technical, so try negotiation first. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I will give this some second thoughts, and will get back on this. Distracting as it remains (for me), I will have to let it be due to other concerns. -- Mdd (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi could you please take a look at the second editwar he started there, for two wrong reasons as I explained here. -- Mdd (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. About the first lay-out matter there have been similar discussions here and here with practically no one who agrees with the anom's ideas. -- Mdd (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are *both* edit-warring at Systems science, and I recommend that you stop. This issue will need to be taken to a wider audience for feedback. When you do that, you'll need to summarize the issue. I'm afraid I'm not getting the difference yet. I do see that one of you wants to bold the subheadings in the section Systems science#Systems thinking theories and the other does not. This is the kind of thing which could be taken to WT:MOS but only after you can state the issues more clearly. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply / Request

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

Regarding your request/proposition (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NothingButAGoodNothing#Consider_renaming_your_account_to_Vasco_Amaral), i quickly "obliged" and filed in a request (although i am not sure if i did in the right place, although i did follow your lead).

"Ganining momentum", could you please protect this page? I think a vandal he's onto it again (mainly because i edited it in as well, i think it's the vandal who began "chasing" me after i reported them; furthermore, their talkpage is well filled with warnings, and they do not stop!).

All for the moment, ty in advance, have a nice weekend,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I semied the page, and gave the IP a final warning. We'll see where he goes from here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User Softvision on talk pages

The problem is, that I have learned, that the Wikipedia rules can be used subjectively, and I really do not understand, why contradiction warning in discussion is a problem, why contradiction is called theory or fringe material. It seems to me, that Wikipedia editors are expected not to think, just copy reliable material. I am sorry, these are not suitable conditions, and at this moment I really do not care much what will be next, and I really do not tend to continue to solve something what is strange to me. I am sorry, but for me is this case, created subjectively by DVdm, obvious. There is nothing else what I want to solve except what I have submitted, and what I consider as serious. Softvision (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In a sense I agree with your description of Wikipedia: We '..are expected not to think, but just copy reliable material.' That is both the joy and the curse of Wikipedia. Don't try to originate creative work here, publish it elsewhere first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand importance of reliable sources. And I have respect to the people doing the Wikipedia work. But tell me trully, If you see some contradiction in the article in Wikipedia, that means you are looking at it, and you think that the contradiction is serious, and you understand that consequences can be also serious, what would you do ? Is the ten sentences section in article discussion a sin ? ;-) Maybe the sin is to ignore it. Softvision (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not editing here on Wikipedia by yourself. If the other editors in the article discussion don't sympathize with your unusual material, it is probably not going to find a home in the article. Ignoring their feedback by repeating your theory on the talk page is not a good thing and won't lead to any productive result. Your material will be better placed on a personal web site or, if you find a sympathetic venue, in a publication that shares your thinking about the errors in the theory of relativity. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am working on that, but not because of my personal ambition. Softvision (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is on what : Length contraction, according to Hendrik Lorentz, is the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer in objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer. - Who is observer in MMX experiment ? Who detected the length contraction, of what, and how ? I think DVdm created a little circus about blocking evident contradiction. I really do not understand, why editors MUST ignore this in Wikipedia, and why users stressing the contradictions are considered as enemies of Wikipedia. Hm. Strange. Softvision (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please let it go. You are at the point where others are removing your posts from the talk pages. If you continue making such posts, you may be blocked for disruptive editing without further warning. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have stressed, this is not my personal ambition. The subject is contradiction. Simply and logically, if others are removing my posts, then there is no reason for making the posts. We don't need to continue to turn around it. If you see the way, you don't need to turn around. ;-) Thanks for discussion. Softvision (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

I have only recently re-checked this article, and find it remarkable that you supported its deletion despite numerous baseless arguments you presented in support of its existence when I adamantly declared and initially edited much of the self-promotional material from it.

In light of this, I briefed your actions on Wikipedia and find your motivation to be generally initiated by a need to belong to Wikipedia than your dedication to its accuracy. It appears you readily attempt to support administrative decisions and debunk ideas that are likely to be questioned by the majority, hence, the administration. It is important to stand behind what you believe in, not cower when challenged and be aggressive when part of the majority.

It is important to acknowledge one's failings if one hopes to evolve, but I predict your reaction to this will be to determine which side of coin the majority will take, and join that, irregardless of what is right or wrong. (if the majority were to agree with me, you would apologize and admit your failure. If the majority disagrees with me, which is likely due to the general nature of unwanted criticism, you will respond with passive-aggressiveness).

I recommend you seek escape from insecurity in another realm for the sake of Wikipedia, as your biased actions are a disservice to the evolution of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirDecius (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No comment on your study of my editing record, but you do seem to be upset about something I did. It's unclear from the above whether you support or oppose the deletion of this article, which occurred in December, 2008. If you are criticizing my AfD vote a year after the event, then thanks for your feedback. If you had strong feelings on the topic, I would have thought you'd have participated in the AfD yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have strong feelings about accuracy. This is why it is clear where I stood on the subject from my previous post. Your missing that is certainly indicative of some distraction by the other things I have commented on, namely, your devotion to compensating for a lack of identity instead of accute thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirDecius (talk • contribs) 09:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I feel I have not violated 3RR but I could be wrong. I have given a response here and would be grateful if you could give me some feedback: [35]. More random musing (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You have gone well past the 'Revert' stage of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle, and you should now be in the 'Discuss' phase. There are many participants on the article talk, and there appear to be sharp disagreements there. I recommend that you stop editing the article completely until the discussion has focussed the issues better. Others should do the same. You seem to be an experienced editor, because you use diffs and you quote policy abbreviations. If so, you should know that this issue does not belong on admin boards. It is up to the concerned editors to work things out on the Talk page, and follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if they are stalemated. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Appalling!

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

so, this "person" ("user" 85.115.52.180) calls me a CUNT (sorry for the language, i'm just paraphrasing) twice in my talkpage, and he's warned to "please stop"? Really unfair, but i'm not going to question the rules man, they are what they are, admins no better. Thank you for reverting his deeds, but he'll keep going after me until the cows come home, i'm afraid...

As fair as your suggestion goes, i think i got it right (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username), now i guess it's just a matter of waiting for the whole process to be finished.

Keep it up, until some other time,

Vasco Amaral, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• No sir, only at this WP, but thank you for asking, this is sufficient. Cheers - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Still about that "person" which is on my case: i have been browsing through that IP's contributions, and some look genuinely good, hence my doubt: this IP is shared by several computers right? If that is not the case (meaning those contributions are made from same household) it is really confusing for me...Could you enlighten me?

Thank you in advance, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK, sorry for bothering you with my doubts...In another matter, could you please block this other sock by Pararubbas before he discovers it is still active (User:Rdcv089, see contributions here, 100% Portuguese soccer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rdcv089)? I would appreciate it.

Good work, sorry again for my questions, only wanted to learn,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

His user name (Rdcv089) sounds like Pararubbas' socks, but he has not done anything wrong yet! EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange...

Hi ED, VASCO again,

any ideas as to why (as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mm40#Boavista_players), i sent a message in this new account, signed it, and the old user name showed? I still had not changed the name in the INTRO in my user page, but the account was already "admin"-resolved.

Cheers, nice weekend,

Vasco, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vasco, go to Special:Preferences. That page has a Signature section. You can try changing something there, and then go to your own talk page and leave a message for yourself, signing it with the four tildes. See if your signature changes. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi ED, VASCO here (well, sort of :) ),

The reports on this sockmaster proved conclusive enough and he was blocked; another user (or admin, or both, as you my friend) found another in a related investigation and blocked it also (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas).

Not saying you did anything bad by not blocking when i asked you - this "person" is unstoppable, almost 20 socks now, 20 more to come - and he also has a neverending supply of anon IPs, from which he continues to disrupt. He's an expert at the following: the article's name (a football club in this case) is C.D. Nacional, CD Nacional being a mere re-direct, so you can imagine which one he chooses, ruining everybody's work (proof here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%BDarko_Toma%C5%A1evi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=324621612). I have warned the "person" in some of his socks about this matter (no point in leaving messages on dynamic IPs...); oddly enough, his anon IPs contain the info that he operates from England, yet his grasp of the language is close to appalling.

Could you please (please?) enlighten me as to when/where a long-range block is appliable? Because if this is not one of those cases...seriously don't know which are.

Attentively, have a pleasant week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Bruce Cairney

Hi, I went back to check what has happened with the impersonation of Bruce Cairney Wiki User:Bruce Cairney, and the discussion link does not point to it anymore. Can you tell me what the staus of this is now?, what needs to be done to fix this abuse tool for the purposes of defamation of character? This has been going on for years and so far wikipedia does not seem to care about this abuse of this service? Bacmac (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bacmac. There was never an article on Bruce Cairney as such. You must be referring to the October complaint at the COI noticeboard, which can still be seen here in the archives. For the moment, the problem has been addressed, though I would still welcome any clarification from you as to how you are aware of Bruce Cairney. The editor who used the User:Bruce Cairney account did not make any improper edits that I can see, and he has not contributed since May 15, so no action against him is needed. His user talk has been semiprotected to prevent IPs from adding any further defamation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New section

Testing. Does the 'new section' button create the header with spaces in it? EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Somalia Affair

I feel multiple users have worked in good faith to handle all the concerns about the article's "offensive" language and would request it be unprotected. The simple refusal to cooperate or compromise shouldn't mean the article doesn't move forward and improve - there have been ~250 edits to the article, greatly improving it, in the last few months...and now that has ground to a complete standstill while a "whitewashed" version of the page has been protected for a month against consensus. I'd appreciate if we could move forward, rather than backward, with this. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you say more about the multiple users? I personally think you might be able to suggest a compromise to Middayexpress, whose post of November 6 on the article talk did not get any answer. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As Geo_Swan indicated, it is obvious that the threshold for "specificity" is met in his opinion as the terms used were not "assholes" or "bitches", but "niggers" used in the context of a foreign military mission in an African country - and that an article specifically about a black civilian being tortured to death coming a week after the perpetrators complained "not enough niggers are being killed" is relevant...and simply saying "they said bad things" is not sufficient. (And, I would suggest, not adequately covered by adding one of the 150 footnotes to give detail...casual readers aren't going to dig through 150 footnotes to find the exact quote). His post went unanswered (by me) because it seems to be endless baiting, there are three uses of the word, I suggest we remove the one use that seems most "gratuitous" and his response is that "to include most of the words is not a compromise, it is all or nothing by Sherurcij" which seems patently unfair. How is suggesting removing 33% of something "all or nothing"? He is not saying "we should leave in this one use in the prose text", he's saying none, I'm saying 3 out of 3. I suggest I'm willing to go 2 out of 3, and he says no, that's not compromise. He doesn't offer any alternative other than that he wants things exactly as he wrote them, removing the "offensive" words from the prose text entirely. I'm game for more RfCs and outsider input - but everything we've had come in so far seems to support me in saying that WP policies suggest the terms should stay i, and I'm reticent to sit here arguing for a year since it seems neither side is going to "agree that the other guy is right", all we can do is go with consensus. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I perceive that there is bad blood between you and Middayexpress, which could be why neither of you wants to budge since the last exchange on November 6. How about if you and Middayexpress would both agree to stay off the article and the talk page for 30 days, and let others work on the article during that time? Protection would be lifted to permit this. Other people would continue to work on the article. They might come up with compromises that would allow the article to move forward. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with that, though I'd include Scooby/Midday both on that list. But I don't mind "taking a break", I have for a couple weeks already - it's just that I'm sorry to see the article suddenly stagnate over this dispute when it really should move forward regardless. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am not "good with that". A simple look at the Somalia Affair talk page shows that editors who have never even edited the article to begin with much less any other Somali-related articles have a habit of "appearing" out of nowhere. Looking at their contributions, they also have an extremely short history of editing on Wikipedia as it is (e.g. 1, 2), which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Unlocking the page will just invite more of these apparent "newbies" to surface and, judging by the remarkable consistency in their talk page comments, it's a forgone conclusion just what exactly their edits will be. What Sherurcij needs to do is quit trying to coax administrators to unlock the page behind the scenes while rehashing arguments that have already been completely dismantled on the article in question's talk page, and answer (if he indeed can) the challenge that has been put before him in my post dated 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC) on said talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are aware the purpose of the RfC, Third Opinion and large template on the main article was to get "editors who have never even edited the article" as well as readers just passing by to voice opinions? Since you seem to agree that it's a foregone conclusion that every uninvolved voice seems to support leaving the "offensive" words in the article in their proper context...I am troubled to think why you consistently pretend this is all about posturing and loud rhetorical speeches without substance. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your 3RR oversight work ♥

Hello--
This'll be odd, but I wanted to thank you for handing this[36] case at 3RR. If I had known it was going to get so--um--involved, I would have put it on ANI where there's more user and admin traffic. You good sir, have earned a cookie... which sadly I can't actually give you. Unfortunately, I also must inform you that I won't be reading the discussion per self-imposed WP:DENY 18 hours ago. Really, poking you head on this stuff appears to be suicidal admin actions from what I see on a lot of talk pages. It's awesome! Shaking people back with a mop stick is an amusing image. Erm, ok, I have a fringe view, I admit. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re

Thanks for information. I am disgusted Faustian behavior, he wants to close my mouth.--Paweł5586 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here Birczanin accused me of lying. I have found today this information in this page: 385. So he is one who lies. And he removed source. I can provide scan from Motyka's book - p. 385 to prove. Birczanin should be banned.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there ED, VASCO here again,

Sorry to be bothering you (as i have already told you, believe me if i could block vandals i would not ask anyone for anything), hopefully now i will get an answer,

There is this vandal from Norway who has been removing important info in player infoboxes (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guti_Hern%C3%A1ndez&diff=prev&oldid=325657405, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_Barrag%C3%A1n&diff=prev&oldid=320265044 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andoni_Zubizarreta&diff=prev&oldid=324533902 for example), and the IP seems quite dynamic to me ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.108.143.34), my only doubt is if it is the same person behind all those edits, although most likely, as ALL of them consist of soccer! The person has been warned already (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:83.108.143.34), yet continues.

Would greatly appreciate your input, keep up the good work,

Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is too hard to tell if his changes are correct. A number of his changes have not been reverted. (Does that mean nobody disagrees with them?) This is not a case of obvious vandalism, so I think it needs a better summary, with more data. He has only received one warning. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply, mate. Yes, i understand your approach, but believe me, even if some of his changes are accurate and good, he has no business removing stuff that is "good stuff". I also see there is a great deal of logic when you say that if a good number of his edits have not been reverted they must be correct, but i think it can be due to two things: First, i repeat that some edits may be actually good, and second, the bad ones that have not been reverted may be due to lack of attention (so many articles out there!) from "good" editors. I will continue to revert his stuff when i feel the edits are - if i cannot call it vandalic - not proper, and the guy (Jaellee) that warned this user has done the same i believe.

Thank you as always, keep up the good work,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

Corticopia is now just reverting changes in an article he doesn't even care about just to bother and disrupt since you blocked him from the articles he really is interested in.[37] Please note that the article has been stable for MONTHS or YEARS, and nobody has ever "complained" about anything on it (especially not about Turkey). He's just being distuptive for the sake of it.

There's a section on the talk page, created by someone else, that deals specifically with this issue: misplacing Turkey in Europe even though most of its area and population is in Asia. This editor's half-assed response to it is very telling. Good luck with everything else. 69.158.56.19 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that a check user should be implemented against the various Anonymous IPs he is using because I am completely sure he's using a registered account to edit the articles about other topics he used to edit (Geeky SCI-FI like "Star Trek", etc) AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to open up an WP:SPI report on the subject. I'd prefer not to be the only admin who ever takes action on Corticopia. Be careful of going over 3RR at Newly industrialized country. What registered account do you think he's using? EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response as usual. I'm looking very closely to the SPI to file the case, I've gathered a lot of info.

With regard of the article Newly industrialized country, it's obvious that he's being disruptive because the logic steps towards the "removal" of certain information is (when Good Faith is assumed): the placement of the CITE tag to give the other editors the opportunity to include references, and/or open a discussion in the Talk Page. Information should not be deleted just because he feels it's not "appropiate".

I think his intentions are clear, he just want to be annoying and start a revert war, so I please urge you to act and protect the page to encourage him to behave propperly. After all, that's what should be done even if the vandal was somebody else and not Corticopia. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is obvious is that this editor is simply pushing his point of view onto the rest of us, and fishing to ensure that the article can be 'locked' to preserve a preferred version. Consult the talk page: he commented that "Turkey is geopolitically European. Period." ... without backup. Some other have commentators disagreed. The edit is very clearly not vandalism. Information is not being removed, only 'moved' and reframed in accordance with neutrality policy: most of the country (area and population) is in Asia, and is often included in the Middle East. The current citations do not support Turkey's inclusion in Europe in total (though of course a minor part of it is in Europe), only that it may be a NIC. It is contingent on an editor who wants to retain information to demonstrate why.

What is also painfully obvious is that the above commentator has been far more annoying and troublesome, through his whining and POV-pushing, than the original edit to begin with. Sad. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I invite both of you to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Of course, a person who rarely uses the same IP twice may have a bit of trouble being taken seriously. I'm not aware of any barrier that keeps you from creating a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of your response is beside the point. Why should I need to create a registered account? Wikipedia provides for that, and others (registered and not) have commented on this particular issue. If articles are successfully locked up simply because some troublesome editor with troubled history is inflexible and unreasonably screams at your talk page (with false accusations of vandalism, etc.), then there's a problem with the exercise to begin with. And, in that instance, it is not I who needs to be taken less seriously. 69.158.55.58 (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:75.141.100.115

This may be too late to matter, but I wanted to answer you anyway. I became aware that this IP wanted a user page when he posted a request on Gogo Dodo's talk as I have it watchlisted. I saw MBisanz comment on Jimbo's talk about there being nothing wrong with creating a user page for an IP, so I went ahead and created it. Hope this helps some. Best, –Katerenka ^☆ 10:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! That does make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad that we could clear that up. :) @Kate (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

JZ KNIGHT

Hi Ed.. Thank you for letting me know the discussion was going on about the JZ Knight Article. I have left another response on the notice board and today I notice that Jujimufu has made big additions to the article in a negative way against JZ Knight and what Ramtha teaches. I would like Jujimufu to be reined in a bit.. This user obviously has a definate stance and opinion he/she wants to let people know about and you have not asked for that to be kept in check.. I know that this sort of subject can be tricky as it crosses so many boundaries and belief systems but we should be able to get through all of that. Potentially we now have users in place to provide pros and cons and yourself to over see the way its presented. This could create a great article and present information in a balanced way..

There are some changes required to Jujimufu latest edit but I am not sure if I can go ahead..

Example: where Jujimufu writes that Glen Cunningham "has accused the School of being a cult. Well I could say "that the school is an advanced teaching facility for the mind" but it has no reference and would be removed, same goes for that 'Cult' statement.

Please get involved Ed, it needs a neutral observer to captain the ship and I think you may be that person. Mindgladiator (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I'm sorry to butt-in like this, but on the issue of Mindgladiator's recent behaviour with regards to the article J. Z. Knight, I would like to bring to your attention his most recent edit, which involved removing the whole of the section "Controversies and Criticism" without prior warning or discussion on the matter.

I have left a warning at the user's talk page that if such behaviour continues he will be reported for vandalism. Another user reverted his edit, but that's not the issue - I have failed to receive clear and grounded communication from Mindgladiator's part, which is why I cannot continue argueing anymore. I feel this issue has to be brought to the attention of more editors/administrators, in the hopes that maybe Mindgladiator will be able to summon some arguments to defend his position; otherwise I see no reason why he should be allowed to edit the article in such a harsh and un-decided manner, without consensus with other members of wikipedia, and especially after what has followed.

Thanks a lot - for taking some of your time to contribute to the discussions with regards to this issue, and for being very helpful in its resolution so far. -Jujimufu (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

GraYoshi and Badagnani

Hi EdJohnson, it looks like we both responded to this around the same time; sorry, I didn't mean to be stepping on your toes, it's just that I had received a message about the edit war and wanted to give them a warning. I will defer to your judgment here; personally I think no block is necessary unless they start up again (even though the recent edits have been quite disruptive), but if you decide to block them anyway I certainly won't have problems with it, given their histories and how recently both of them have been involved in other editing disputes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Eiður Guðjohnsen vs Eidur Gudjohnsen

According to The National Register of Persons in Iceland his name is Eiður Smári Guðjohnsen, so Eiður Guðjohnsen is correct. Then, why the IP is considering to use the WP:Requested moves process? Archibald Leitch (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is not how he is referred to in Icelandic sources, but in English sources. From WP:NAME, "Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language source". (For example, how his name spelled in the local newspapers of the city where he plays). EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. In that case, all the articles about Icelandic players should be spelled to the local lenguage. That rule is kind of wrong, but if that is the rule I don't have any problem about that though.Archibald Leitch (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:82.36.17.10

This IP was discussed at AN/I for changing their sig to that of an admin, and !voting multiple times at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_McElderry. You asked them to explain and their response was that they really wanted the article kept. I advised them against this. They have now done the same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Daniels (singer). As this is sock-puppetry, could you follow-up appropriately? Non-IP user is User:Hassaan19. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by I42 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for resolving! I42 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Goa in troubled waters?

Check this out, don't call this POV ! [38] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.17.155 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose ideas for improving our articles on Goa. What you linked to in the Times of India seems to be a legitimate article. Where should the info be added? Perhaps Deepak would add it for you, if you specified which article needed to be updated. If you are a sock evading an indefinite block, you should try to be on your best behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be spamming entirely random people. I checked the history for Goa and couldn't find any of the people I searched for who he spammed. I've reverted all of them but this one. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They are not random people, but editors who call my article POV. It was very important to send the news to them. Kindly undo the same. --59.95.25.12 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is "no" an acceptable answer? You still appear to have spammed to me, regardless of whether they were random or not. You also provided absolutely zero context to your edits. Also, if you are who you appear to be, you're indefinitely blocked. Shoo! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting this editor's comments seems correct. If he wants to be unblocked under his main account he can write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Until then we should have no patience with him. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

user 81.151.103.174

You blocked this anonymous IP above today for a period of 24 hours. I request, if you have the means, that you get the entire IP range for this user blocked permanently. Blocking this user has been done so many times, and it has NO effect, because he has a rotating IP. Because of this, he has been at this for over a year now because no-one has taken the initiative, or because no-one has the means to stop him. Either way, just informing you, hoping that you can end this boring ordeal or possibly get someone else to do it. FYI, I have complained to his ISP, and as I suspected: Absolutely no response, apart from an auto-response. I really don't intend to spend my time on Wikipedia sending complaint letters to ISP's because we cannot handle disruptive users, neither do I intend to keep at this silly reverting for as long as this user intends. So where does this leave the users who try to fend off this vandal? Eik Corell (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit War Notice Board

Hello, Can you tell me how long it takes for an administrator to address a complaint regarding edit warring? I put a notice up regarding an editor on the Karl Rove page. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In the recent history of the Karl Rove article I do not see more than three reverts by either party, and maybe not even three reverts. Also some edits might be justified by WP:BLP, so it's hard to imagine that an admin will rule against either editor; it would most likely be closed as No Violation. What are the chances that you and Chhe could negotiate this on the article Talk page, and reach a compromise? EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks so much for getting back to me. I'm sorry to say that Chhe and Jusdafax are very much not amenable to cooperation. They've been hostile, especially Jusdafax, right from the beginning. You'd have to wade through the tortous history to see that. But, I've learned hard lessons over the summer. Fortunately, I've had some tutelage, at my request, from Moonriddengirl and JP Gordon, both very helpful and I learned alot from their suggestions. I think with the tag team of Chhe and Jusdafax it's best to go the legal route and report violations as they occur so a history is built that others can see. Any suggestions on the Karl Rove talk page would be welcome if you care to comment. I saw your comments from an earlier post and that's why I contacted you and discovered you were also an admin.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not really any higher law than the article Talk page, for content disputes. I'm not sure why you think that admins would have any special ability to solve this one. (We only ensure that people are discussing properly and not trying to force their views into the article by excessive reverting). Maybe you can open an RfC or find some way to bring in editors from one of the WikiProjects, to find a solution that has wider support. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that an admin could help make sure that no one is forcing their views on each other with reverting, etc. Sorry, I don't know what an RFC is. I will contact the Wikiproject editors, I hadn't thought of that. That's a good suggestion. It would be nice if the page could move beyond the scandal sheet it is now into a real biography. I was also thinking an admin checking on things might be enough to tamp down some of the anger Chhe and Jusdafax have and use it regularly to chase away new editors. Wikipedia needs a little work in that area, I think. Thanks again,Malke 2010 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What is an RFC? Thanks,Malke 2010 (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A Request for Comment. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Down 30,000

I read an article today about Wikipedia written by a major newspaper. It says that Wikipedia user count is down 30,000 from 2-3 years ago. It says that 25% of edits from newer users are reverted up from 10%. It says that drama (using a different word) is up. The article discusses that people are beating up on users citing rules (so this could be wikilawyering). We should be mindful of what this article says about us.

If this IP is merely giving us references to newspapers, this is good behavior, not bad. Disruption is bad, giving a few (and in this case, only one) posts with a link to a newspaper is not disruption. If this IP left a message with you and you don't want such information, just leave a note on the user page.

This article that I read was a real eye opener. It says that edits are way down. It says that real experts don't want to write here. It didn't say we are bad but that we bite newbies. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

another error

Oh my! I just found a huge error. I am writing about a Finnish tire company, the largest. The article says it was founded in 1988. Decades wrong. This is what we need to do, search and destroy all errors! Let's go and fight! You may stay behind but this is what I'm doing for now! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve IP editor

I offered to help, but my offer was rejected. The editor, under his new IP (Special:Contributions/71.174.142.108), is beginning to push his POV to other articles - in and of itself OK, but his style is could be better, and his comments on the various talk pages (both before and after his block) suggests he hasn't really accepted the process here. Even WP:AGF, at best it seems he's used to the anonymous, somewhat combative editing style of blogs and news site reader opinion sections. I do think he needs some careful oversight. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left a fairly long post on the IP's old talk page, trying to give some more detail about what is considered wrong about his earlier posts, and some better guidance towards what is expected of him. While he's generally polite, I agree with 4wajzkd02's characterization of "combative". Appreciate the checks you've made though! Ravensfire (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The following addresses most of Ravensfires concerns - and shows that he is probably as ignorant as 4wajzkd02 (who admits to knowing nothing about this issue in his talk page). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Reserve_System#Cites_supporting_my_position_-_showing_it_is_not_OR_or_SYN71.174.142.108 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"shows that he is probably as ignorant as 4wajzkd02" - this is not exactly an example of how to win friends and influence people, let alone look for help in your quest. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Being harrassed by Ravensfire and 4wajzkd02

Ravensfire and 4wajzkd02 keep following m around and deleting everything I add. This includes material on talk pages.

I believe that they are intentionally trying to provoke me so that I do something uncivil in order to get me banned yet again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nullification_Crisis&diff=327606424&oldid=32760399471.174.142.108 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.174.142.108#Nullification_crisis_talk_page71.174.142.108 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

SGAUS

3RR warning. I read your message. I have continued to work on the page with very limited incremental additions. I have not seen any feedback from the Todd Gallagher since seeking assistance. Please let me know if any of my edits breach Wiki protocols. Respectfully22015va (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up question: What action is required to have the COI banner removed? Who does this?22015va (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to find newspaper or magazine articles commenting on the idea of state defence forces, or discussing particular episodes regarding these forces. It is hard to believe that there are have been no controversies regarding them over the years, and the present SGAUS article gives no hint of any political disagreements. When an article includes some criticism, that makes us more likely to believe that its coverage is balanced. If a COI-affected user can write an article that ends up sounding neutral to other editors, we usually assume that the COI tag can be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston, I have added a reference section which contain a DoD report to congress, a U.S. Army War College paper and an American Legion Article. Is this the kind of third-party sources you are looking for to provide balance? Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you found these references. It would be even better if you could extract some relevant facts from these references and add them to the text of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, the references I added do not mention SGAUS. I added them to provide third-party information about state defense forces and to help show that 32 USC 109 forces have no relationship with private "rump/militia" groups. I am not sure what I could extract from these references that would not compete with Wiki's existing State Defense Forces article. I do believe that they are relevant to the extent that they show that other organizations are also looking at and supportive of expanding 32 USC 109 forces to assist with expanding domestic missions that place such a heavy demand on already over-tasked federal National Guard forces. 22015va (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See some ideas I listed at User talk:Todd Gallagher#How to improve the articles. I welcome any suggestions you may have. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I have read your suggestions and do not disagree with any of them. I have posted comments on the article's discussion page as directed by the Sr. Wiki members - in hopes to develop discussion and consensus. I believe that if the article were to be deleted, user Todd Gallagher would reinstate it anyway. I do not believe that the SGAUS content should be merged with the State Defense Force article as I believe the efforts of the group carry enough merit for an independent article.

My efforts (post 3RR and request for editor assistance): I have limited all of my edits to small incremental changes (so if there are objections they can be discussed). Added numerous third-party sources links. In an effort to meet user Todd Gallagher in the middle I added the section on private groups. However, his charge that SGAUS supports private militias is out-right wrong. SGAUS will recognize lawful groups seeking to establish or continue support for lawful SDFs [39]. SGAUS is an independent organization and does not have control over other entities. I added a column to the states table that includes links to state corporation records to show that the individual state-groups are independent entities (separate from SGAUS). I have emailed the SGAUS group and asked for a current list of recognized state-level associations. Once I have that, I will add them to the table. I am not sure what else I can do to reach out to this user? The said part is the history and discussion sections are so filled with arguments, any article will be meaningless and have little credibility. I will post an "olive-branch" on user Todd Gallagher's talk page. Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston, I wanted to check with you to ask when/how the COI tag can be removed from the SGAUS article? I have been adding comments to the discussion section as directed and have left messages with the other users in an effort to open dialog but have received no feed-back. I have also added additional information and links about the individual state-level associations (including links to state corporation records). Not sure what the next step is? Happy Thanksgiving, Respectfully,22015va (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for the message. About recent change patrol, I have been doing it so why isn't it showing up? Is there more to it then just reverting vandalism? BIONICLE233♥♠♣ 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Phew! I got worried my edits did not count! Thanks for fixing the misunderstanding!BIONICLE233♥♠♣ 19:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

News Item related to your continuing misguided restrictions on me

I've been editing wiki articles on and off for about 3 years and I have to say that wiki editors has gotten MUCH more asinine over that period of time. In my case I have two editors (using term LOOSELY as they are more closely resemble censor then then editors) who have been to following, hounding and harassing me. This harassment includes multiple case of deleting TALK PAGE material. Considering my treatment by those two and yourself I would sooner join a band of rapists then become a registered wiki editor.

You reap what you sow brother!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6650077/Wikipedia-project-losing-contributors-in-record-numbers.html

Wikipedia is losing tens of thousands of volunteer editors a month, according to a study that suggests the pioneering spirit of the collaborative encyclopaedia is in decline.

“The articles are very tightly controlled by others now, and that makes it hard to jump in and contribute.” 71.174.142.108 (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Find even a single person who supports any of your edits, and I'll be more sympathetic. Wikipedia is a group project, not a solo venture. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thew way you people run it will soon be a dead venture.71.174.142.108 (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why, because we revert people who attack other editors? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

and is that supposed to includes TALK PAGE discussions like this one here? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_Tender_Cases&diff=327975068&oldid=327974807 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.142.108 (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to apologise to you if I in any way stirred this up. As you may have noticed, I even ended up reporting myself for my involvement with this user. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure.

The guy torqued off some good users and it wasn't as if he hadn't been asked not to be so doggoned uncivil. Glad to help, Ed.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"people of the book" page

hi i have not undone the page but i edited it. does that count as a revert?

i keep putting the article in the correct neutral form but there are people who keep vandalizing it to put it in their form.

i think a lock on this article is the final answer, there is just no other way to deal with the vandalism. if you read the discussion page, you will understand who is the person that is trying to create neutrality in the article and who is being biased. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: 3RR noticeboard

Ed, thank you for your message. I appreciate the heads up, and the respect your message showed. Yes, I am guilty of violating 3RR, and knowingly so. That is the problem of having the Irish temper combined with the German stubbornness. This is not the first time it's gotten me in trouble here. That said, I do not believe I am entirely incorrect in what I have done. Most of my edits have been to revert Jimsteele9999's continued reinsertion of uncited claims that seem to amount to opinion or OR. As it happens, just for one example, I think the fish story is important, as the title was not random on Salinger's part. However, the other editor cannot claim it is important without giving a source that says why. I believe that I have been clear that I want him to provide references for his claims. At any rate, once again, I appreciate your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

i have tried everything

i dont know what else to do for the article "people of the book"

i apologize if you feel that i edit war in the past but now i have behaved in a very civil manner. i would appreciate it if you could check the discussion page. ReligionScholar (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You have written "surah maidah is in plain english". This makes no sense. Isn't the Qur'an written in Arabic? I don't see why you are persisting on this point. No one on the Talk page seems to agree with you, and they have pointed out that most scholars don't limit it to Abrahamic religions either. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WQA on motivation

Hi, I noticed your comment on the recent WQA but thought I'd posted enough from myself on that alert. Could you highlight where you believe I have commented on motivation on the ITIL talk page? I thought I'd been careful to avoid doing that, only commenting on editing behaviour rather than the motivation behind it.—Ash (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If I misread the history of Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library please excuse the brevity of my comment. Obviously, using RfCs is good and WP:EL/N would be a wise strategy in the future. (And, as an editor I suspect you are right about the relevance of the links). Since you were presenting at WQA, which is an interpersonal relations forum, I was hoping to steer the discussion towards article-related matters, which are hopefully more objective and avoid the need to make summaries of people's behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your 6-month semi-protection of Boron

Hello,

Following a recent specific case at Vanadium, I have reviewed the semi-protection status of all chemical element articles, and found that many of them were either not warranted or have excessive protection lengths.

Keeping in mind that it was concluded that Vanadium's protection length of 6 months was too long given the circumstances, and that it has been shortened to 24 hours, I invite you to reconsider the 6-month semi-protection you granted to Boron.

Thank you. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that IPs provide about six good technical edits to Boron per year, during the periods of unprotection. (That is, about one every two months). So we need to check about 20 IP edits for vandalism for each one that is truly helpful. There's also a few grammar corrections, the number of which I haven't verified. I'm lifting the semiprotection now, to see what happens. but I would be tempted to reimpose it as soon as another dozen IP vandal edits come in. See WP:Rough guide to semi-protection for more background. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for listening. I am well aware of the current semi-protection policy, and I notice that some admins (not you) regularly ignore it by granting indefinite semi-protection with no supporting history of vandalism. (Here is an example) What I am concerned about in these cases is that they seem to do it just so that the autoconfirmed elite can finally edit their article in peace. I think this is a concerning trend that not only falls foul of protection policy, but also betrays fundamental WP philosophy.

On this specific case, let's see what happens. Personally, I think that 1 good edit out of 20 (plus let's not forget those typo corrections) is not bad at all, and it would be a shame to miss them out. Compare to the action going on in the unprotected beaver or color. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey friend-o

Where do I report blatant abuses of Twinkle? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you've already discussed the matter with the editor concerned, and are not satified with their response, I would say take it to WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

On Template:Massacres_of_Poles made by our friend Pawel, I'm just wondering if I could get some input since you're familiar with the user and what will eventually unfold into an edit war. In this diff you can see the contention. Now, the navbox itself is stated by Pawel to be "for Massacres of Poles commited by UPA", now, is this a legit use of a navbox? In his addition in the diff linked above of putting "crimes committed by ukrainian nationalists, UPA, etc" is that not POV pushing? I suggested he use Template:Holocaust Poland as a design reference, he got mad. Just wondering if I can get your impartial take on this if you have some spare time, before anything escalates. Thanks. --Львівське (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Several vandalisms in template mainly by Birczanin, removing link - 1, 2, [3, 4, 5, 6, and here: 7, here vandalism and lies, I have checked, source is proper: 8.

About additon, this is simply explanation which formations took part in massacres of Poles.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Treemanshoe puts on a sock

• I was thinking of offering User:TrEeMaNsHoE a deal: That he refrain from socking for several months, and then post a new unblock request on his original account's talk page. I was also thinking of revoking talk page access to User talk:PlannerPenBackpack, in order to force the conversation into one spot, but I would have to lower the block you made to do that, so I thought I'd run it by you first. Of course if he does not abide by this deal we could put it right back up. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think all I did was disable his talk page access. If you want to revisit Ericorbit's indef block of TrEeMaNsHoE, you have my blessing. The guy's history is extremely unpromising, though. He seems to have no idea that he needs anyone else's approval to completely rearrange discographies to suit his preference. Good luck in trying to explain consensus to him. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My hopes for this are quite low, (like, underneath the carpeting low) but I'm going to give it a shot nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you will be stunned at this news, but it didn't work, I've rescinded the offer and initiated a ban discussion at ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ebrahim Desai

I would appreciate it if you could offer some assistance as I do not edit war. I have attempted to discuss the topic but discussion was reject and instead now the removal (edit warring) of fully valid opinions pertaining to the person of the article is being removed, when in fact you yourself noted that there was no BLP issue when referring a mans own work and words. And the allegations of coatrack is continued without any basis as there is no coatrack and never was. It is in fact quite common for scholarly articles to mention opinions and fatwas which at the end of the day is what the person is known for. I have spent time on the article to my best abiding by neutrality principles to accommodate other contributions. Fragma08 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This article has caused some dissension. Some people are objecting to referring to his fatwas in the article if they are sourced only to his own website. To avoid their objections, I suggest that you continue to search for any references to his work in newspapers and books. Whenever third parties have commented on this work and his opinions, you can add those sources to the article. Looking for outside commentary also helps to ensure that the article will be balanced. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree 1) as you yourself noted that there is no BLP conflict. Kindly, note that the people objecting, are only focusing on this one area, and have reverted the article to a version written by a possible adherent of the mufti [40] thus including information and claims (majority unsourced) and invalid links[41]. The objection is clearly biased and not valid or well founded dissension just like the claims of defamation, if the many discussions are reviewed. I have protected this page from vandalism for some time now and this fatwa is neutral and reliable as can be. As you know fatwas are usually not discussed as religious edicts and fatwas are not a matter of public discussion or news as regular news are. So the entire discussion of third parties or outside commentary falls to the ground, unless you count blogs, forum discussions etc. It is simply not applicable and if we were to follow that stance then only a few lines should remain of this article as majority hails from the article person himself and his own websites. The fatwas are important and I just do not see the harm and I have adjusted as much as possible. At present the article is biased and the information should added back to ensure the views are presented. I have played by the rules and so I would like it if you could review the matter yourself. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, so I am not discussing the fatwas or opinions but merely presenting them. I see no harm as it is common practise when reviewing other articles of scholars, muftis yet no call for notability or even reliability there. In advance I regret the long reply but hope you will review the matter in more depth.Fragma08 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope you can reply soon, and if you require any help in locating discussions or such, I can be of help.Fragma08 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice that other editors at Talk:Mufti Ebrahim Desai are asking for third-party sources. That would still be my preference. You've made this comment there: "Specially taking into account that his fatwas are often the subject of discussion among people out of interest. As he hails originally from India, some mention will be found in that language." It sounds like you are still arguing that his fatwas should be directly included from his website, regardless of whether they are commented on by third-party sources. I do not find your argument convincing. I still think you need to convince other editors on the article's talk page. This is not a matter for admins to decide on. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, the reality is, that fatwas, as I have explained on many occassions now, are not really discussed by third party sources. This is not something press like other events. They would have nothing better to do if they were to point out every single fatwa they felt was interesting or such. Besides why would they mention it, when they have no problem with the content? Which is clear from many discussion forums. I also don't understand how you can find their arguments convincing when in fact one of them has one claim only "coatrack" which you can clearly see makes no sense and is not an argument in itself considering the same person refused to discuss the matter [42], and instead used ANI, which is abusing ANI. And certainly their argumentation is lacking too, when they maintain thirdparty sources for this area only, while completely omitting the fact that majority of the article's content is not thirdparty referenced. Their agreement is therefore biased and I would argue this is for admin in the event of their clear cut bias. I am also concerned of the constant attacks on myself if you look at this [43] and [44]. Certainly as you already clearified that a person can not be defamed by his own words and so there is no BLP issue [45]. I do not find your argument, which is based without including the full context: I understand, it is normal for admin to assist in such a matter, where some decide to 1) insert a version of an article written by a possible adherent of the cleric, and 2) showing now objection in such articles clear flaws and the unsourced material from a 3rd party perspective but focusing only on one specific opinion. We are talking about religious edicts not normal news. And usually these are a matter between the individual and their cleric as a Q&A. Surely the other editors need to convince me of the full article rather than just making up nonsense claims and inserting their viewpoint. It is also clear that none of them has actually gone through the remainder of the article, which is quite strange. Fragma08 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, as I am still awaiting your comment. If you do not wish to assist, then you may state so, then I will not ask you any further. I am simply at a loss considering I have followed the protocol but all self evident flaws and baseless claims go unaddressed Fragma08 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I see that many editors besides me have commented in the ANI thread and nobody agrees with you that this is a Wikipedia policy issue that needs any admin intervention. The question of WP:UNDUE can only be settled on the talk page of the article concerned. If you can't persuade the other editors there, there is no higher court of appeal. Your multiple posting of this at many venues is not encouraging. If any third-party sources believed that the fatwas were worthy of comment, we would probably have them in the article by now. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well considering the bias of some editors/admin and the protectionist view of selective editors, that is not encouraging for other wiki editors such as myself, either. As previously explained, fatwas are not usually as a standard taken up otherparties, as it is personal and fatwas are published by the hundreds if not thousands a day. So to keep track of anything that may be interesting is unrealistic. majority of the editor on the talkpage have hidden agendas as already explained. But even that remains unaddressed. I am not multiposting, but tried get the issues addressed as I naively thought neutrality and equality on wikipedia were for real. I was clearly mistaken. I shall not write to you anymore. The article belongs to certain editors. I understand that now. Goodbye Fragma08 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Draft WT:AFD closing opinion on live merges

See WT:AFD#Merging during live AfD for the discussion this is trying to summarize.

I've agreed to close a discussion at WT:AFD about live-merging. This is a draft of my closing statement. Anyone who wants to comment on whether I correctly summarized the discussion may add their views below at: #Space for comments by other editors on whether this summary is correct. The overall trend of the results is pretty clear. Keeping or strengthening the current advice at WP:Guide to deletion against performing live merges is what most editors support. I will be offering the accuracy of my summary for review. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Background

Live merges are merges which are attempted while an AfD discussion is actually running. We already tolerate the editing of an article while its AfD are running. Sometimes changing the article title (moving) during an AfD is also done, though not everyone approves of that practice. Someone who attempts a live merge is going one step further since they cause an attribution dependency between two articles, so that, according to most people, the article which is the source of the merge can't be deleted so long as the target article exists. Essentially, this allows the person who does a unilateral merge to veto the deletion option in the AfD. (Not everyone describes the matter this way, but see the full debate for how the individual participants would phrase it).

Closure statement

There is a spectrum of possible answers on whether live merging should be allowed, ranging from:

• Always allow live merging, for any reason

at one end of the spectrum to:

• Never allow it - editors who try to do live merges should be blocked.

Both ends of the spectrum seem to be consistent with other Wikipedia policies, so it comes down (in my opinion) to a majority !vote of those participating. The only uncertainty is whether the debate was widely-enough advertised.

It makes life simple for the closer of the debate if people will follow Flatscan's suggestion and simply pick a numbered option. But I also had to weigh up ten opinions that had several clauses and qualifiers. For these I tried to pick the nearest numerical value. Those opinions are quoted in full down below.

The original discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Merging_during_live_AfD, opened on 23 August by User:Flatscan. That debate seemed seemed to wind down by 13 September, and the result appears inconclusive.

On 5 October, Flatscan opened a new thread, with the comment: Since a clear consensus was not reached, I am revisiting this discussion, with possibly an RfC for more input.." He formally advertised this second thread as a policy RfC on 16 October, with the stated question being "When is it appropriate to merge content from an article at AfD?"

He proposed five choices to be considered, with the suggestion that readers should go through the previous thread (23 August) if they did not know what the dispute was about. "Since there was some confusion over where editors stood in the last discussion, I wrote a selection of opinions, numbered for reference. Feel free to work from or ignore them."

When is it appropriate to merge content from an article at AfD?

1. If a single editor believes that there is viable content that should be copied to related articles, improving Wikipedia per WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR
2. If the AfD has substantial support for merge
3. If the AfD has overwhelming support for merge that would be a valid close under WP:SNOW or WP:Non-admin closure
4. Almost never, with very limited exceptions
5. Never

The results appear to be the following (details below):

1. 4 votes
2. 1 votes
3. 3 votes
4. 17 votes
5. 3 votes

Other comments that should be mentioned here:

• davidwr: Believes that copying the edit history to the Talk page of the target article would suffice for attribution. He was the only person to propose this as a solution.

• Some participants noted that copying of content between articles without proper checking for attribution probably does happen.

• Some participants observed that there are ways to 'game' deletion debates. Sometimes live-merging is viewed as an inclusionist trick, but deletionist tricks are possible as well. For example, an AfD closes with 'Merge'. Then sometime after the article is changed to a redirect, an editor will come by and delete the merged content from the target article, thus making its content disappear for good, even though 'Delete' was not the result of the AfD.

Conclusion

20 out of 28 users picked options 4 or 5, which rule out live merging in nearly all cases. (4 is 'almost never' and 5 is 'never'). Editors thus support keeping or strengthening the advice against doing live merges during AfDs which is contained in WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. The current wording is 'You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article.' Suggestions are welcome as to whether there is any consensus in the discussion to rewrite the entire paragraph, but its import will be much the same.

EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors who joined in the second debate (Revisiting Merging during live AfD, opened 5 October, 2009)

After each editor's name, I give the numbered option for each one. This is either a number picked by them, or a conclusion I arrived at from reading their opinion, in case they commented at length and mentioned more than one number. See the cases that were judged by me in a separate section below. These entries are given in italics in the list of votes.

1. 2over0 - 4
2. Benjiboi - 1
3. Colonel Warden - 1
4. DGG - 4
5. Davidwr - 3
6. Doctorfluffy - 5
7. Epeefleche - 4
8. Fabrictramp - 4
9. Flatscan - 4
10. GB fan - 4
11. Ikip - 1
12. Jack Merridew - 4 (I said "4++" which is a post-increment notation; my meaning was 4 leaning towards 5. Jack Merridew 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
13. Jclemens - 4
14. JohnCD - 4
15. KrebMarkt - 3
16. Kww - 4
17. Lar - 5
18. M4gnum0n - 5
19. Mazca - 4
20. Pablo - 4
21. Peregrine Fisher - 1
22. Protonk - 3
23. Seraphim - 4
24. Shereth - 4
25. SmokeyJoe - 2
26. Stifle - 4
27. UnitedStatesian - 4
28. Verbal - 4

People choosing each option

1. Benjiboi, Colonel Warden, Ikip, Peregrine Fisher (count 4)
2. SmokeyJoe (count 1)
3. Davidwr, KrebMarkt, Protonk (count 3)
4. 2over0, DGG, Epeefleche, Fabrictramp, Flatscan, GB fan, Jack Merridew, Jclemens, JohnCD, Kww, Mazca, Pablo, Seraphim, Shereth, Stifle, UnitedStatesian, Verbal (count 17)
5. Doctorfluffy, Lar, M4gnum0n (count 3)

[Altogether, 28 people left comments in this discussion: 4+1+3+17+3 = 28]

Complex votes mentioning more than one number (or no number) to which I assigned a value myself

(These 10 votes I am quoting in full, to be sure that I assigned the numeric result that is closest to what they meant).

• Protonk: "2 or 3. Depends. It's a case by case kinda thing. 4 is fine too." [Summarized as 3].
• Lar: "5 is my first thought (Per Stifle, what's the rush?) but call it 4.99 as Pablo makes a convincing argument against absolutism." [Summarized as 5]. This is an accurate classification of my comment ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Peregrine Fisher: "I think a redirect during a live AfD, when it's an obvious thing to do, should be allowable." [Summarized as 1].
• Davidwr: "3, but why not go ahead and snow-close it? 2 if there is support for a particular merge by the AFD participants over at least a 24-hour period." [Summarized as 3].
• SmokeyJoe: "3, but without the need for "overwhelming". "Convincing" is enough. 1 is also good. [Summarized as 2]
• Mazca: "5, with a side order of 3." [Summarized as 4]
• 2over0: "4.65 - very close to never, but bureaucratic nit-picking should never interfere with building the encyclopedia." [Summarized as 4, because that one is the closest in meaning to his position] This is an accurate classification of my comment. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Flatscan: "4 (almost never); exceptions being 3 (overwhelming/unambiguous merge support per SNOW or NAC), but prefer closing, then merging in those cases." [Summarized as 4]. This is an accurate classification of my comment. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Benjiboi: "I see absolutely nothing wrong with finding appropriate content on any article and moving to another. What likely shouldn't happen while an article is at AfD is disputed mass content removal. Not the trimming of OR content but the mass deletion of content that is being subjectively discussed forcing either an edit war, which we don't want, or the subsequent editors to dig to find the full article, which arguably rarely happens." [Summarized as 1].
• Epeefleche: "I would generally be in favor of not merging during a live AfD, though I would be open to being convinced that in some particular cases there might be exceptional circumstances." [Summarized as 4]

Space for comments by other editors on whether this summary is correct

(Please add your comment below. Don't add additional opinions on the original question, just say whether the discussion was summarized correctly). EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You could probably do some content analysis of the people from the first discussion that did not participate in the RFC, but the result wouldn't change. The only ones I see are A Nobody and NickPenguin (probably a 1 and a 2 respectively) and Cameron Scott (3 or 4). Anyway, I think the result supports re-writing the paragraph to reflect the specifics of the RFC. Instead of "extreme caution", some guidance is in order. However, the "exceptions" in #4 were never defined. Two options that come to mind are "equivalent to an overwhelming SNOW closure in favor of merge" and "unanimous support for a merge". Both seem to fall between "never" and SNOW closures. "Unanimous support" is least susceptible to gaming, which was a concern raised in the RFC. There were also some good options that individuals suggested during the RFC, such as strong cases of 2 or 3. But would 2 run into gaming? I fear so.--Chaser (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Four editors were in the first discussion but not the second. If their !votes were counted, it might be two 1s, a 3 and a 4. There is some logic to keeping the count within the four walls of the RfC. These missing editors were all invited to join in the second round. If we were to include all the first round votes in the total, some of them would be very hard to summarize, since they did not benefit from Flatscan's more precise statement of the question.
• If we were to revise the language in WP:GD to something new, we might have to launch a new discussion. It would be good to reflect on specific AfDs where live-merging was performed, and ask editors to say whether they think the live-merging was correct. Here are the three examples actually linked from the WT:AFD discussions:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson

This was cited by Jack Merridew as an example of 'Merging during an AfD as a highly disruptive tactic used with the aim of precluding a delete outcome'. In that AfD, Jack left a comment citing this edit by A Nobody as being a disruptive use of merging to forestall a delete outcome. See the top of Talk:Jimmy Patterson to see the three {{copied}} templates placed by A Nobody which state "Jimmy Patterson now serves to provide attribution for content in Medal of Honor (video game) and must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor (video game) exists."

• WP:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (2nd nomination)

This was cited by Flatscan: 'Despite a split consensus, the nominator performed a merger and requested a speedy close'. Pokerdance did the merge to Michael Jackson here, and then Unionhawk did a close of the AfD with the result 'Content has been merged.' There was some protest of this near the end of the AfD discussion. In fact, due to objections Unionhawk opened up a third AfD nomination on his own, declaring that he'd not been aware that the previous nominator (Pokerdance) had done the merge himself.

• WP:Articles for deletion/Ra Cailum class battleship

This was cited by KrebMarkt, as an example of a general pattern whereby a project that has such articles on its clean-up/merge list will probably accelerate its merge efforts, thus hijacking the outcome of the AfD. Though the merge was done 'early', during the AfD, the discussion seemed to have a merge consensus anyway, by that point, though seven days had not elapsed.

Chaser, do you want to comment on whether your personal criterion for live-merging would have allowed the merges to be done in these cases?

One thing that nobody commented on (though it seems obvious) is that if the live-merging editor is going to frustrate the deletion verdict, he will have to announce it in the debate, and then the other participants can (if they wish) protest vigorously. In fact, they can take it to DRV if they wish. So live-merging only works to forestall deletion if it is made known. And then it can be undone. Nobody has yet offered examples of AfDs that closed with deletion and thereby forced live merges to be undone. Still, the angry comments in the debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (3rd nomination) suggests that live merging has the potential of annoying AfD participants if it ever becomes widespread. Also, this 3rd round of AfD would have been completely unnecessary if the live merging had not been done. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One closed no consensus, so clearly outside the RFC result. The other two were weak SNOW (option 3). So since the RFC consensus was for option 4, I'd say it does not include them. However, some of the exceptions that individuals suggested were strong cases of options 2 and 3. So perhaps 5-1 AFDs might be prematurely merged or SNOW-closed.--Chaser (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What I've seen happen in at least one instance (WP:Articles for deletion/Kangaroo attacks in Australia, DRV; I think I've seen a few, but I don't have links ready) is that the article is restored. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the overall summary and conclusions. Thanks for doing all this work. I have some minor suggestions:
  • Replace "GFDL dependency" with "attribution dependency" wikilinked to WP:Copying within Wikipedia. This reflects the change to dual licensing and links to the relevant guideline.
  • Note the users whose comments required interpretation, perhaps with italics in the lists. To make my agreement explicit, I signed off on the interpretation of my comment above. Benjiboi's statement looks more like a 1 to me.
    Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I made the above changes as suggested by Flatscan. Though I won't write to all the individuals who participated, anyone who thinks their vote was wrongly classified can add a note here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick implementation of the suggested changes. Everything looks good; I have no further suggestions. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. It appears to have been quite a bit of work to review everything, too. Thank you. You asked for suggestions re the GD wording; how about adding With very limited exceptions, it is inappropriate to merge content from an article at AfD. right after the extreme caution sentence; possibly glue it up with a semicolon. There may not be AfDs that closed with deletion and thereby forced live merges to be undone *because* this "highly disruptive" tactic can be quite effective if left unchecked. All manner of "effective" actions people get up to can be highly "inappropriate":

• "The sack of Troy. The destruction of Carthage. The Vikings. The Crusades. Ghenghis Kahn. Attila the Hun. The massacre of the Cathars. The witch burnings. The destruction of the Aztec. Ditto the Maya. Ditto the Inca. The Inquisition. Vlad the Impaler. The massacre of the Huguenots. Cromwell in Ireland. The French Revolution. The Napoleonic Wars. The Irish Famine. Slavery in the American South. King Léopold in the Congo. The Russian Revolution. Stalin. Hitler. Hiroshima. Mao. Pol Pot. Idi Amin. Sri Lanka. East Timor. Saddam Hussein."

Many, of course, should be opposed. Passionately.

Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 04:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to include practicing medieval torture on Jack Merridew in your hyperbolic list.--Chaser (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The list is a quote; it's Margaret Atwood's list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the overall summary. I think Flatscan made two very good suggestions about attribution and italicization, and I see you've taken those on board. Thanks for your efforts on this. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Looks good to me too, except for the statement that we "tolerate the editing of an article while its AfD are running". In fact, we encourage users to improve the candidate article to clearly establish notability, and commend such efforts rather than simply tolerating it. This part is not central to your closing statement, but I hope you'll consider rephrasing it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC) PS On second reading, I am not even sure if the Background section is part of your closing statement; if it's not, just ignore my comment. Kudos on a reasoned assessment of the RFC consensus. Abecedare (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Seems fine. My comments were brief (and possibly opaque) because this subject has been brought up multiple times before and the consensus hasn't changed much. My advice would be to just close the talk page discussion and not infuse it with undue importance or weight. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have links to those previous discussions? I looked without finding anything, but I don't remember how diligently I searched. I think that the breadth of responders and procedural steps (the RfC and the request for an uninvolved admin closer) make this discussion above average. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Ed, on reflection my concern is not so much what the specific standard is, but I think we have gotten enough guidance from the community from this RFC to cast aside the vague "extreme caution" language, which in the past has been taken as permitting a merge during an AFD where consensus is anything but clear, and replace it with something that makes clear that "editors should not merge during AFD without a consensus comparable to SNOW". The RFC results support at least that much.--Chaser (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Chaser, the option that was picked most often in the discussion was #4. Now you're suggesting that live merge should only be done if there is a SNOW consensus for merge in the AfD. Isn't this the same as Option #3? Do you think that people who are trying to obey rule #4 would attempt more live merges than those following #3? Can you give an example? EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I've been unclear and modified my comment accordingly. The answers to your questions are yes and no, in that order. I just have trouble translating option 4 into a standard, but if you can, more power to you. My main point is that we have to either get rid of this "extreme caution" language or more clearly illustrate what level of consensus is required to do this during a live AFD.--Chaser (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion supports wording of at least the strength of "extreme caution". I share Chaser's concerns, but the discussion did not specify a wording. I intend to clarify this in a subsequent discussion. Regarding 3, my comment (and similar ones from others) suggested a SNOW close first, avoiding a live merge by timing – this is technically not an exception. AfD regulars are familiar with and readily object to premature closings. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, what about taking the 'almost never' phrase from Option 4, which is the thing most people selected. So instead of the present language:

* You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of Wikipedia's licensing). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy.

we would have:

*You should almost never merge any part of an article while the AfD is still in progress. If it turns out that a merge has been performed and the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of Wikipedia's licensing). The community has not given complete guidance on whether any live merge is ever justified. Avoidance of such merges should reduce contention in deletion debates, avoid extra process and will spare administrators the tricky work of de-merging. The only cost imposed is the duty of patience until the AfD closes.

I am not sure this makes a big difference but I think the new paragraph is fully consistent with what people said in the discussion. I can see the benefit of removing 'If you are bold..' since there was certainly no majority support for boldness. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this "almost never" language is the same as the problem with the "extreme caution" language: both are subject to interpretation and are thus abusable. I accept that this was an inherent flaw in the RFC. However, simply stating "almost never" does not convey the consensus that was achieved at the RFC. Option 4 ("almost never") was between too much clearer options: "never" (how much clearer could you ask for?) and "overwhelming support" such as SNOW. Ed, if you are uncomfortable with the idea of paraphrasing "almost never", then the least we can do is put more guidance in the new language. I propose "almost never (that is, more support than a WP:SNOW closure)". Simply switching the language to "almost never" will leave us open to disruption and necessitate another RFC. But another RFC is not necessary to assess the consensus here.--Chaser (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to identify the common property of all the AfDs where live merges would be endorsed by the consensus in the RfC. What do you think of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra Cailum class battleship? Do you think the community would accept the live merge that was performed there as proper? EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned that I would have left a note for the merging editor if that AfD had been fresh. I think it depends on the exact circumstances, but it's possible for a similar merge to cause problems if there are existing tensions between the WikiProject and other AfD participants, such as accusations of "walled gardens". Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Third version for your comments

This language would replace 'You should use extreme caution before merging..' in the Guide to deletion:

• AfD voters should not circumvent consensus by making their own personal decision on a merge target and copying material there unilaterally, before the debate closes. This may cause contention, a need for extra process steps, and unnecessary work for admins. The permanent home for any material that ought to be preserved should be negotiated with other editors in the AfD discussion itself. Preservation is often worthwhile but it causes an attribution dependency between articles that may require the retaining of some article history that would otherwise be deleted. If you see a debate leaning toward Delete rather than Merge and you notice a way that some material might be kept elsewhere, offer your proposal in the discussion. In that situation you must wait for the debate to finish before merging any material yourself. The closer may be able to assist you in any reuse of article text that would enjoy general support.

  EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Suggest "retaining" --> "retention" ;) Jack Merridew 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (on handphone)

Sorry for not responding sooner. I think this is good. It states a prohibition but not in such absolutist terms as to betray the "almost never" language. In fact, I think it follows it quite well and captures the consensus of the RFC. Well done.--Chaser (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I support this version. I like how it avoids the imprecision of "almost never" by using specifics from the discussion. I suggest changing "AfD voters" to "AfD participants". Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fourth version

An AfD participant would be dodging consensus if they were to choose a target for a merge and then proceed to copy material there before the debate closes. This kind of premature action may cause contention and may induce others to call for deletion review. It may require admins to do extra work if anything has to be undone on the target article. Preservation is often worthwhile but it causes an attribution dependency between articles that may require retaining some article history that would otherwise be deleted. It is accepted that editors must not create these dependencies on their own without backing from others. Waiting for a consensus is essential when you see that an AfD discussion is leaning toward Delete rather than Merge. Even if the debate ends with Delete, you can ask the closing admin how to save material that might be useful elsewhere, and the admin can advise on any further review steps that might be needed to justify that reuse.

EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with the third version?--Chaser (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked a friend to review it. I was told it was too much in the passive voice and was a bit vague as to who was supposed to do what. I can change it back if you think it has shifted any obligations around. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the third version slightly overall, but some sentences here are better. They are pretty close, and polishing the exact wording will be most easily done live at WP:Guide to deletion. When you implement the change, would you paste both versions in separate revisions (one over the other) so that you can be appropriately credited regardless of which words come from which version? Flatscan (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to go back to the third version if it captures the debate better. Can you say which sentences are better in the fourth? Both versions may still contain some redundancy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll copy the sentences that I prefer. "AfD [participants] should not circumvent consensus by ... copying material [to another article] unilaterally, before the debate closes." (3) I removed the "personal decision on a merge target" clause, as potential targets are usually discussed to some extent, but it may be necessary for introduction. "This may cause contention, a need for extra process steps, and ... work for admins [if undoing any merging is necessary]." (3, plus idea from 4) I don't remember any of these AfDs being appealed to DRV. "Preservation is often worthwhile but it causes an attribution dependency between articles that may require retaining some article history that would otherwise be deleted." (4, but very similar to 3) From there, I prefer 4, except for its missing 3's recommendation to "[negotiate] with other editors in the AfD discussion itself". Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you make a fifth draft per your ideas here? That will make your argument easier to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Per your comment that there are no actual examples of live merging being appealed to DRV, that's worth noting. But in the case of WP:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (2nd nomination), there was a third AfD, opened by the closer of the second after he discovered that a live merge had been done. So perhaps the wording 'extra process steps' is best. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifth version

AfD participants should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally, before the debate closes. Such action may cause contention, extra process steps, and additional admin work if undoing any copying is necessary. Preservation is often worthwhile but copying causes an attribution dependency between articles that may require retaining some article history that would otherwise be deleted. If you see a debate leaning toward Delete rather than Merge, offer a specific proposal, negotiate with the other participants, and wait for the discussion to be closed. Even if the debate ends with Delete, you can ask the closing admin how to save material that might be used elsewhere, and the admin can advise on any further review steps that might be needed to justify that reuse.

As requested, I stitched together another version based on 3 and 4. I did some trimming that might have weakened the practical prohibition a little. At this point, I think there isn't much difference of substance between the versions. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed the RfC, per entries at WT:AFD and WT:Guide to deletion, and put a closure box on the RfC. I edited the Guide to deletion to put in the text of the fifth version. The existing sentence that implies you are free to do anything if you rewrite material in your own words still seems correct, so I left it in. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you copy a summary (#Conclusion above would work) and add a permanent link to the detailed discussion here into the archive box at WT:Articles for deletion#Revisiting Merging during live AfD? Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hassaan19

Per your warnings to 82.36.17.10 / Hassaan19, do you regard this as worthy of investigation as further sock puppetry? The thing that particularly bothers me is updating Hassaan's created article list which is something that 82.36.17.10 did regularly when Hassaan was editing as that user. There is some similarity in their edits, such as [46] and [47] but it's just as likely a case of one user agreeing with and "supporting" another. Is an investigation justified at this point? Thx! I42 (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is exactly what you warned Hassaan19 against. I42 (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Hassaan19 for 31h and warned Whitebrightlight about socking. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! I42 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Blimey - he went ballistic. And this, where Whitebrightlight talks about Haasaan19 as "me", seems to me to be damning evidence they are one and the same. I42 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your two weeks of work analyzing, discussing, and closing WT:Articles for deletion#Revisiting Merging during live AfD. Thanks! Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to blank this for any reason. I'm not much of a barnstar giver. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If the change to the Guide lasts more then 30 seconds, it will make it all worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitebrightlight at ANI

You've not been mentioned (yet) but you might want to look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Feeling harassedBest, Nancy ^talk 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification question

You proposed at the 3RR noticeboard here for SkagitRiverQueen the following; "I have proposed that she agree not to edit the Ted Bundy article for one week, to avoid a block for violating WP:3RR." SkagitRiverQueen responded in part about your proposal with this "Sure, I'll play the game." So is she to stay away from the article for a week or not? The reason I ask is that I am also an editor there and was going to leave SkagitRiverQueen a notice to check the talk page since I made comments that are directed to her and some of her edits. She is editing the page today which has caused some controversy so I don't know if I should request her to stop in and see what I had to say about her edits of a couple days ago, which I think were about this 3RR notice plus edits from today. I'd appreciate some clarification/guidance about whether I should comment about the Bundy article on her talk page. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it that SkagitRiverQueen has agreed not to edit the article for one week, until 07:11 UTC on 18 December. She should still be able to edit the talk page. No reason why you shouldn't talk to her, and it would be a good thing if people could negotiate the best wording for some of the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, please remind her of this and let her know that she is not to edit the article per your above comment, but that she is ok to edit the talk page. The reason I am requesting this is because this morning another controversial edit caused even more stress which is why I am trying to calm things down. I think the way I am going about this will allow everyone to save face and also agree, at least for the most part, on the changes I am suggesting. I should disclose that I have asked her to refactor her comments on the talk page that accuses an editor of ownership issues without any supporting difs. I feel that the comment brought a lot more heat than light, which is what I am trying to stop. I am going over to her talk page now so I will dif this thread for her to see also. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit by SRQ of Ted Bundy which you cite was before she agreed to the one-week pause. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'm a bit tired and didn't catch that sorry. I will be more careful in the future. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

As far as taking the remainder of comments/complaints, etc. to the talk page, no problem, Ed. That's exactly why I didn't respond any further to Wilhartlivie, not to mention I felt he/she was really trying to just goad me into more of an argument, and I just don't see the point nor the necessity. Thanks for your input. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Question about a vandal report from October

This discussion happened at User talk:Rami R#Question about a vandal report from October. Thanks for the reply! EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your report about Rapturous at WP:COIN

Thanks for the interest. I have un-withdraw the notice based on the fact other editors expressed COI issues on this talk page. And yes, that is pretty much the case, he added links to the site (simply a mention and score in a review table, rather than any contribution that adds to the articles), several users reverted them, myself included, and accusations of vandalism were thrown about by Rapturous. I had originally withdraw because the user seemed to have backed off himself, but if further (preventative?) measures can be taken at COI then I welcome them. Rehevkor ✉ 19:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new job!

I'm out, you're in! I grit my teeth and look forward (?) to attempting to edit the thing, and hope that you won't soon need to hit me (or anyone else) with the cluebat. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good luck with the content! I undid the protection and put up a new protection notice in my own name. See Talk:White Brazilian#Change of admins. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI in limbo

Regarding your proposal at User_talk:Valerius_Tygart#ANI_notice, it sounds reasonable. Tygart appears to be taking the 'Fifth', instead of responding — perhaps hoping that if he ignores the issue, it will just scroll its way into the oblivion of the archives. It has been several days since he was notified by several people on his talk page, and there hasn't been a response. On the positive side, he hasn't warred on the Maher article during the past several days either, so I've refrained from raising that part of the issue on other noticeboards. The socking issue is still bothersome. What is the status at this point? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart could be warned against further socking or any further edits at Bill Maher. The thread probably serves as enough backup for an individual admin to take action if Tygart won't lay off. 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)EdJohnston (talk)

Well, he's back now. He has resumed the edit war on Maher; ignored specific concerns on the Maher talk page, and re-inserted contested content against consensus. He also responded at ANI, denying he has ever abusively used socks. (Basically, saying J.delanoy's checkuser results are in error.) This is a step beyond the warning stage now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. I left a longer than anticipated response to your comments on my talk page. Perhaps it will add some perspective. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Got your message, and I have softened my response. I also removed your comment, if that's alright. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston, greetings! Your comments re: Maher & "Bechampism" on Xenophrenic's talk page were very well taken, I thought. Please consider contributing on the Maher talk page. I have recently made a RfC... Cheers, Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Jane Krakowski

Done. – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CH

I'm replying to you here since the WP:AE discussion format drives me batty. Carl isn't likely to have students proxying for him. He's been an emeritus for a while now, authors papers as sole author, and I don't think former students would have an interest in socking for his latest work on Wikipedia, especially since they're not involved in it. There were some Math/CompSci admins that dealt with Carl in the past, but they are now considered, ahem, involved with him, so they won't deal with that stuff anymore. Pcap ping 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

HELP!!

Hi there ED, VASCO "here",

longtime no see, hope all's fine with you, my friend. This time, i really need your help: an idiot (yes no personal attacks, but you wait until i'm finished!) has done/been doing the following: he started vandalizing some pages, always anon, and i reported him and/or got some pages protected.

EVERY SINCE that day, he's been no my case, reverting stuff (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Sundgren&diff=312687172&oldid=312643880 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julio_Salinas&action=history, just two examples), vandalizing my user page (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VascoAmaral&diff=305185006&oldid=298762426 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VascoAmaral&diff=327300702&oldid=325372123) and sending me stupid messages (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=321827038&oldid=320852746). Now, the pinnacle of all idiotic vandalic inputs: he sent me a message accusing me of vandalizing a page, then signed off as another registered user - did not even think that was possible (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=332114455&oldid=330648373)!

This is getting seriously out of hand, i am really pondering leaving the site if, as i imagine you may, tell me nothing can be done about this "person". Please answer man.

Attentively, as always, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, Vasco, this is confusing. Can you give a short list of all the IPs and all the registered accounts that you believe are misbehaving? Employ the 'userlinks' template so I can see their contribution history. Like:

• {{userlinks|Billy Bob}}
• {{userlinks|1.2.3.4}}

and so forth. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here it goes (no registered accounts): 88.106.152.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.106.227.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.106.200.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.106.202.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 86.165.54.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.106.186.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

With the last IP, an "interesting" situation emerged: the person started sending me messages to the talkpage, seemingly of a friendly nature (but in one of them, the smiley was replaced with graphic sex), and has not edited more with today's IP-of choice (the list i gave you now is not complete, there are many others which i cannot remember); in one of my non-aggressive replies, i said i was prepared to bury the hatchet; is the person being true or sarcastic (the person also sent "smileys" to their talkpage, then signed as me!!)? I think it's the latter, but i think you should wait before any further action, man.

Some would think my last sentence shows a fear of vandals. Fear? No, saturation, i'm sick and tired of these people annoying me, and if this means not blocking them, then so be it. Couple of months ago, i protected a page (i think it was also this "user" as anon), and the reply did not go under the table: "CUNT". As i said, sick and tired of this, please wait to see if the person attacks me again.

Attentively, thanks as always, VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've relisted the accounts:

88.106.152.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Last edit Sept 9

88.106.227.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

88.106.200.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

88.106.202.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

86.165.54.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

88.106.186.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Only the last IP in this series is currently active. He's been adding obscenity to articles, so he is blocked for 72 hours. A range block does not seem possible. I suggest you just submit these guys to WP:AIV whenever you see a new one. If they are doing obscenity, personal attacks or simple vandalism no long explanation is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)