User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Memri

I think there is now slow edit war going in this MEMRI article with usual players maybe it should be protected.--Shrike (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If that's an edit war, it's a very slow one. They are also doing a lot of discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi EdJohnston. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mukharjee Author

Help Needed with advice! I have restored Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals with advice of deleting user. But i am now stuck with very volatile artilce, ie. I have made all my effort to be neutral but the topic is very abused on wikipedia already! Please have a look at user page: User:Mukharjeeauthor/Taj_Article, although i have worked too much on this but still not sure about it as all the company websites are also blocked and it seems like stockpuppets have already tried very hard in history, but above all the group seems noteable but i am unsure about that, as you adviced i am also using google books for articles. please reply, Thank you for your time!Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Links to WikiProjects on Wikipedia page

Quicklinks to WikiProjects(Wiktionary, WikiNews etc) are needed on Wikipedia and vice-versa, in the header or on the left-margin column. Please consider including these to the existing links for the convenience of users navigation from one project to another.Rockin291 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

AA2 warning

Could you issue an AA2 warning to anon IP:213.172.82.180 following his/her three edits[1]. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Also semiprotected Ganja, Azerbaijan and Julfa, Azerbaijan (city). EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

edit warring on filioque

Why is it that Richard [2], [3], [4] and Esoglou [5] can wholesale delete my contributions? Why is that OK? Why not move them or rewrite them how is differing justification for censoring historical facts from the article? (i.e. I deleted it cause it was written wrong or in the wrong spot) There was no talkpage anything but now there is inflammatory comments calling my contributions -rants- after the fact. [6] I even have compromised and deleted half of it for now. [7]

Why are these two allowed to continue to do this to a growing list of editors on here including me?

Like Phatius McBluff points out Esoglou feigning incompetents to justify his disruptive behavior but is sharp as a razor when finding someone else in opposition. [8]

-Or Esoglou/Lima edit warring with user:Taiwon boi

[9]

-Or Esoglou/Lima edit warring with User:Leadwind

[10]

-Or Esoglou /Lima edit warring with User:Swampyank

[11]

-Or Esoglou edit warring with User talk:Hashem sfarim [12]

And still nothing gets done to them. However I peep and its ban time? I had not reported Esoglou as committing an edit vio because what I contributed and he deleted is a series of actual historical events not opinion on Roman Catholic this or that.

"People are entitled to their opinions, they are however not entitled to their own facts."

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ip stalking me

This IP is stalking me. Can you give him a range block please? His IP changes pretty quickly. Its the same person who was stalking me about a week ago Pass a Method talk 02:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please list all the IPs that you believe he has used. That would save time if admins decide that a range block is necessary. It says he is coming from 'Amazon' which is peculiar. Maybe he is using Amazon AWS which is probably a server farm. (They have a /14 range which is too big to block). This might justify a proxy block since web servers should not edit Wikipedia. Consider reporting this at WP:OP. Amazon has an abuse-reporting system. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunni Islam

Is it possible if you can warn user:Pass a Method to stop reverting my good faith edits? [13] I have presented that specific information in the best way possible (with NPOV) but his version again destroys another important article. He keeps putting 75% without the word "over" in the front. The Demographic section should explain a little about why there is no accurate percentage and name some of the leading experts on Islam and the their estimates. This is normally how Wikipedia articles supposed to be written.--Kiftaan (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you because your edit violates WP:UNDUE. Why should Britannica and other sources be given special mention while other sources not? Pass a Method talk 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are an unmanageable number of sources which present different numbers ( no matter what it is about basically ), and they are all of RS status, then it is good practice to state the lower and higher bound of those numbers attributed to the source they come from. Assuming that the edit represents that lower and higher bound then it seems sound. un☯mi 13:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You could potentially list all the numbers given by known RS sources as a footnote, thereby allowing the reader easy access to the data, without having to wade too far into the deep waters of "why this if not that". un☯mi 13:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan

I would appreciate, in fact, if you would comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Doncram reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ). It seems to me that Sarecofvulkan is deliberately causing contention, repeatedly. --doncram 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

"If your only purpose on Wikipedia is to carry on a struggle against the spokesmen for the other side, people may get tired of you." Even the most casual inspection of User:Jiujitsuguy's edit history, not to mention the new articles he's written since returning from his topic ban, confutes any possibility that his only purpose on Wikipedia is to carry on a struggle such as you've attributed to him. Even if you intended it as constructive criticism, I feel your comment was unwarranted and unduly harsh.—Biosketch (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Overzealous?

I've just filed my third report of edit warring of the evening. I'm actually a little concerned that there may be a connection between these cases but that I may be missing it. In each case, the editors seem to have stopped just within the 3RR rule. Am I perhaps being a little over-zealous in reporting these cases? Longwayround (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed three cases you recently submitted. No obvious problems but be sure you count *four* reverts not just three if you are reporting someone for a WP:3RR violation. One of your complaints was about PeeJay2K3. If you work on football articles you should know that User:PeeJay2K3 is one of the most active football editors and has produced many featured articles. It is always worth trying to negotiate with him even though patience may be required. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I continue to learn. Longwayround (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikireader41

I've replied to your assessment on my talk page. I don't agree with it, the common element is NPOV. However, this user continues to edit my talkpage after repeated warnings and pastes contentious content.

Comments on RFCs: [14] & [15] (the latest after warning).

Comments on talk page: [16], [17], [18] & [19] (the latest after repeated warnings of not editing my talk page while he continues to barge into discussions he did not start or was invited to).

He's escalating to personal attacks inspite of repeated warnings and needs to be checked. All his RFC comments are containing personal attacks (being more on me than on the content). This, as I previously showed you, would be another example. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if you reply here (if no action can be taken or if the actions are not a violation). Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy Nazareth case

A comment on User:AGK's talk page compelled me to re-examine the case. I mention there something that might be cause for re-opening the case due to a more serious conduct issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

VanishedUser314159 ?

Hi,

a lot of complaints about sock puppets [20].

I don't know how to investigate or alert the noticeboards.

Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the editing style of VanishedUser314159, you can make a list here of articles where you think he is evading his ban. Though I'm busy for a few hours, I will try to look at the matter later. You will need behavioral data to show the connection. I might consider semiprotecting the affected articles if it is convincing. Or if you have the data, you can open a complaint at WP:SPI. In your report there you can include a link to the AE case. It appears that User:William M. Connolley is also editing on at least one of those articles. You could ask his opinion as to whether this is actually User:VanishedUser314159. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not able to collect the evidence. I see that 128.59.169.46 got blocked. I guess that 128.59.169.48 is the same story, but again I don't know how to use the tools to collect hard evidence. Please also see this "threat" promise [21]. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know 140.252.83.241 has been editing in the same style as the above IPs, but at intervals. The 128.59.169.48 traceroutes to astra.columbia.edu, 140.252.83.241 is registered to National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, Arizona. Without digging deeper with the risk of an outing, there seems to be a connection. Is there some way to easily keep an eye on the 140.252.83.241 IP in case future edits show the same behaviour ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Tucson IP has not edited since August. No need to block at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree to that. Is there an automated way of keeping an eye on the IP, through "my watchlist" or something like that ? --POVbrigand (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no feature for watchlisting someone's edits. The concern is that it might lead to harassment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

He is at it again [22] this time IP Special:Contributions/128.59.171.184

User:POVbrigand is a sock of User:LossIsNotMore who was banned for cold fusion POV-pushing. Just so you keep everything straight, Ed. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is very difficult to follow the Wikipedia policy I'm following when POV-pushers like POVbrigand get all snotty. You guys should think about reigning them in sometime. 128.59.171.184 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for new user.

Hello I think the user:WiPhi should be warned about WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions becouse of this two push poving edits [23] and [24].--Shrike (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Left him a note. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.I ask you to to correct yourself.I didn't say that he is obvious POV pusher as it goes against WP:NPA I only talked about two particular edits.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have revised my comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindly note; discussing issue at All_Rows4 and Sean.hoyland, any reason why Shrike doesn't contact me directly? Regards, wiφ 18:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC) - WiPhi (talk)

I didn't contact your directly because other users already given you a good advice.I thought you should be aware that your are editing in very problematic area and given an official warning because of your edits.--Shrike (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This leaves little to the imagination: "becouse of this two push poving edits" - preceded by "discretionary sanctions." So who will apply what discretion, and on what grounds? Shrike accuses me of POV-pushing to some 3rd (behind my back as it were), but what if my alleged POV is closer to the truth than the wiki articles? In other words, where and how is the truth arbitrated - for wiki to include non-truths = lies debases the entire wiki project. I only intend to edit again after I line-up 'cast iron' substantiation; Shrike can have a relax. wiφ 19:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC) - WiPhi (talk)

If I may add my two-penn'orth: I appreciate that you are trying to contribute to an area of Wikipedia which covers an exceedingly emotive topic. I think you may find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Truth. In brief, if you can find reliable, third party sources which support your edits then you are generally welcome to add them. If you cannot find such sources then, no matter how convinced you are that a statement may be true, you should not make the edit. This can be frustrating in circumstances where you know something to be untrue. Generally, however, it is easier to find reliable sources for truth than for fiction. Longwayround (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI Not to clutter your talk with my verboseness, you may kindly continue any business pertinent to me (= sending me a message, say) at my talk here or here.
rgds, wiφ 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) WiPhi

Question

Are edits done on the Genocides in history article subject to AA2, if the changed information pertains to either Armenians or Azerbaijanis? This anon IP changed the word from "genocide" to "conflict" with no explanation in the edit summary.[25] Granted this is only one edit, but I thought I would alert you to this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, have a Happy Holidays, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

About the Edit War complaint that I've filed, I think you may want to look at this: ([26]) Regards. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Talknic - 6 Months ban

EdJohnston - Big deal. The record shows your minds were made up before I had a chance to respond. You have completely ignored those who conspire to undermine by consensus to retain clear violations of Wikipedia policy. You and your fellow administrators have shown ample evidence of what can only be seen as collusion, as I've suspected all along. It will make a nice write up ... talknic (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy "Palestinian" sanction

In case you haven't noticed Nableezy has been accused of violating the ban you imposed on adding "Palestinian" to articles. Although he self-reverted he on two occasions asked in the edit summary for someone else to make the revert. His defense has been that asking someone to make the change for him is not a violation of the ban. My thought is that it would be a clear-cut violation. Would you explain on the case whether you consider it a violation of the restriction to ask for such edits?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Were edits in category pages exempt from the restriction?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning for Reaper7?

I made a warning, and immediately wonder if that was something that only an Arbitration Enforcement Administrator should have done. Reaper7 left an attack on the 2nd Macedonia Arbitration referees on my talk page (on the basis of their nationality with this edit), and I responded sharply, and issued an ARBMAC warning. (I do not believe we had any prior interaction before he came to my talk page). If I am wrong, please correct me and do let me know if there was a right way, or better way, to proceed. Jd2718 (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw your warning at User talk:Reaper7 and logged it in the WP:ARBMAC case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since writing that comment I notice he was sanctioned by name in WP:ARBMAC2. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I questioned the policy, not the judges themselves so the warning is null in reality as there was direct attack on anyone, just as the title of my entry suggested correctly, 'A question.' I understand your mind has been convinced to my 'severe and repeated violation (what that warning describes). However I also believe it is never to late to learn from one's mistakes and admitting it to yourself is just as important. Please ignore or read the reasoning for why this warning was ridiculous and dangerous. Either way, I will sleep well knowing at least I tried to offer neutrality to this correctly doubted warning which was for a post that never carried an attack severe, or repeated of any kind. Thanks for updating me on my warning and putting Jd2718's mind to rest for the warning he issued. here is my defence, pointless now I am sure, but truth is should never hide:

I was asking Jd2718, personally, if referee's nationalities matter in a abritration because I could not find any reference to this anywhere else and saw he was happy to answer questions to other editors on your talk page. I assumed good faith on his part to answer my question. I was in no way challenging the encyclopedia or committing repeated and serious violations in asking him this which sadly for this mistake is what warnings should be reserved for, not those seeking information from a superior member, which is what he and you are. I do not care what side he voted on/believed was right - there is no need for him to tell me this in his response and this in itself shows me he and you still believe I am interested in persuading you to do something of some sort which confuses me, that was not my aim or question and I am not interested in your personal beliefs on the topic at all - why would I be, only what is allowed and considered the status quo on wiki and I am would like a definite answer if a referee's nationality matters in an arbitration. For example if an Israeli editor is allowed be a referee on a Palestinian editing war arbitration for example - does that question deserve a warning - is it alone a severe and repeated violation? The warning is unfounded and it was an abuse in itself to warn me over this. I take great care in what I write and am offended by the warning and the doubt it brought out in Jd2718 as soon as he issued it. I simply believed he acted too fast and has obviously been over battled-hardened on the topic to the point which for a second he could not differentiate a serious violation in bad faith from a simple well constructed question by someone who considers you 'to be in the know' concerning Wkipedia policy. If you cannot answer my question or direct me to someone who knows the formula or rules on which referees can be assembled/ chosen to solve conflicts from the nations directly involved it is not a problem. From a simple football game referee to a assembling a grand jury, nationalities and beliefs of a referee or judge/jury are key and taken into consideration. Of course asking if this is the case in wikipedia is not something more serious than ad hominem as he posted on my talk page. It is a simple question regarding the process, policy and rules and regulations which I am clearly not familiar with concerning a wikipedia Arbitration. I have learnt not to assume good faith on a stranger's talk page, trust me - but it is not like I have made a habit of asking strangers policy either - which even then would not justify a serious violation. We both know what constitutes serious and repeated violations on Wikipedia and we both know this question which he even admits was in good faith on my talk page and does not justify any type of warning - at all as I am not question the judges or referees - simpley whether there is a policy which negated said judges/referee being allowed to rule over an issue that directly involves the nation they are a citizen of, really no debate here.

I know this was meaningless, but truth should never be ashamed, especially in light of obvious mistakes. Thank you for your time and explaining why you agreed with Jd2718. Reaper7 (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

when to warn

Hi Ed, as you are active actioning 3RR reports I was wondering what you think, and if you would comment if you see fit, about my comments here Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring#when to warn - my aim is to clarify and tighten the reporting timeline with a focus on pointing back to discussion in preference to reporting when the red line has not been crossed. I have seen a lot of reports where the warning template is simply given with the link to where the report has already been made, negating any value to the warning. Discussion is always the only thing in edit wars over wording or weight or inclusion or exclusion that finally resolves the dispute, and after a block the users almost always have to return back there. I am attempting to cut out all of the weak reports and push them back to discussion, avoiding the middle man (the block, which is a very negative experience for users and imo should be avoided if possible) by giving the warning template more weight and "authority" in a report. - by moving to a position of, warn before you report and do not report unless the user makes a further revert after receiving his warning. - Youreallycan (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - as one of the most experienced admins there perhaps you could expand a bit in regards to, what do you see the 3RR warning templates primary purpose as ? Youreallycan (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We want people to be warned so that they are aware there is a problem. No point in sanctioning someone for breaking 3RR if they are unaware of the rule. Even knowing that somebody objects to your edits is sometimes enough to get a conversation started. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the template works well when it is used on that way, in many cases it stops a user making another edit, it is valuable in that way. When it is added by a user in the diff prior to them making a report is is valueless as a warning and in fact it is worse than useless in that case a proper notification of a report would be more useful to the person being reported. He can easily just think ok I got a bit excited and I have had a warning and I will log off and have a cup of tea, he has had a warning template and has paid attention to it, but meanwhile, he has been reported to the noticeboard without notification and without him making another revert after the warning. Youreallycan (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not clear to me what problem you are trying to solve. Are you aware of anyone being sanctioned recently at WP:AN3 who you think was not sufficiently warned? So far this sounds more like a theoretical problem. In many cases the submitter of the report doesn't follow the steps anyway, and the admin has to piece together what actually happened. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent case but I have seen this "warning" template used poorly since I started editing here. If my suggested trial was in place then if the submitter did not give the user a warning then the report would be void. This would stop users being reported that had not had the opportunity of being warned and backing off. The need for the user being warned to continue the edit war after the warning and make another revert after the warning before he can be reported will give the warning template its true value in stopping revert wars and returning the editors to discussion. This will imo reduce the reports, and reduce the numbers of contributors that have their ability edit removed, and reduce administrative work also by removing their need as you say, to "to piece together what actually happened." The reporter either gave a warning or they didn't and if they did the 'reportee' either made another revert after they received it or they didn't - It will set the red line even clearer and push the weight back towards discussion - all in all creating a more congenial environment. Youreallycan (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please give an example of where the warning template was 'used poorly', in your opinion. 3RR admins already try to push disputes toward discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I will make a bit of a study and collect some diffs and get back to you. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting the the admins are making wrong decisions. Just that in many cases there is no need for them to have to make those decisions, and that the making of a in-actionable report, without any warnings to the reportee is better avoided. My small change will eliminate the vast majority of those reports. Even a report where a user has made four reverts without having been offered the good will benefit of a warning notice that gives him clear warning that he will be reported if he makes another revert, or the other good faith opportunity to self revert, benefits no one at all. Currently the emphasis of the format is on 'report' and 'block' and I think it should be more focused on 'warn' and 'step back' and 'return to discussion'. I will collect some data over the next few days. Regards. Youreallycan (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

FYI

Ed, hope you have noticed this clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have modified my comment to reflect that MN did not use bold face in the original. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, thank you updating your comment. Hope you have time to review diffs in my comment here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Request

• Hi, you suggested that I be checked for sockpuppetry. I have no objections, actually I welcome it. I have filed one myself, but it was turned down. I also asked Tuscumbia to file it, but he refused. I guess he wants to keep calling me a sockpuppet, without any proof. --George Spurlin (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Makaton

You recently fully protected Makaton because of edit warring however it was not an edit war but it needed to be fully protected. The ip 85.237.211.189 has been making personal attacks against me and has been evading previous blocks by resetting his ip address. This person has been removing sections unexplained from Makaton. I have tried to resolve it on the talk page a long time ago. Could you please restore the section that the person has removed as the person got to remove it just before the full protection was issued. I also heavily suggest autoblock as this user has been evading persoanal attack and vandlism blcoks by resetting their modem. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean blocking ip address range. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please obtain consensus at Talk:Makaton for the change you want to make. It seems to be a legitimate question whether your material belongs in the article. If you feel that other editors support your change please list their names on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What about his block evasions and previous personal attacks against me from previous ip addresses. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I provided the sources on the discussion. The sources were in the original section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramaksoud2000 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The user is using a new ip address now since his the other got blocked. 85.237.211.184 Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That account might be a "Good hand" and "bad hand" account because some contribs are constructive from that account. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mere sourcing is not sufficient. Other editors are saying that your material is not important enough to deserve inclusion in the article. You need to actually persuade other people that your material belongs there. See WP:Dispute resolution for other steps you can try if you are stuck. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you at least put a temporary ip block range on the block evader. Like maybe block ips 85.237.211.180-190? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramaksoud2000 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried something. We'll see if it works. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection templates

Just a heads up that you don't have to add protection templates to pages you protect, because a bot is doing that automatically. →Στc. 21:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The bot would not know whether the large or the small protection template is better in a specific case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Although you are incidental here, and may not have even seen the posts, I'm required to notify: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI mentioning you

While it isn't about you, you have been mentioned in an ANI thread. See "Mayday, Mayday, Block-evading harassar".Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify

Hi Ed. On my talk page, you expressed concern about these two edits. Could you please clarify which edit you meant, the removal of posts or the adding of a note? The second edit, the one that isn't stale, is unrelated to the dispute. It's not me marking any problems as fixed, but a note to make it easier for volunteers. The volunteer later checks off the item (as in here). Thanks, Nightw 05:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned about your removal of the other editor's comments. Had that removal been formerly checked by admins, it is quite unlikely anyone would agree those were personal attacks. For him to give his opinion that you don't understand copyright is not very surprising in the middle of a CCI. (If he thought the opposite, why would he be there?) EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understood you about that; I thought you were accusing me of marking off problems myself. Thanks for clarifying. Nightw 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of my topic ban.

Hi EdJohnston. Since I can't edit result part of my AE request, I decided to write in your talkpage. I just wanted to clarify a moment regarding your post in here. When I was topic banned in April, it was said that my topic ban will be in force until 10 September ([27]). I did not make any edit in AA dispute until that date, except this one, which I made accidentally, and deleted again when I noticed my mistake. I hope this will help you to reconsider your view. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Hi Ed, thanks for the link, I have a vague memory of what happened last time. I'm currently at work so don't have time now to look into it in-depth, but will try to do so on my lunch break / at home tonight. Thanks, GiantSnowman 09:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, slight lull in this morning's work so I've had a look back to 6 months ago. My comment about "sudden, almost impulsive admin action" related to the fact that FkpCascais was placed on an Arbmac revert limitation without even being notified about the ANI thread, let alone allowed to defend himself. That just didn't sit well with me. I've always found FkpCascais to be a decent editor whenever I've crossed his path at WP:FOOTBALL. As for the discussion at AE, well that looks to be petty nationalistic squabbling, from both sides, and as I don't edit those kind of articles (I stick to sports, much easier!), I don't really have much to contribute I'm afraid. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, GiantSnowman 11:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Revdel might be needed

A HNY to you! I've spotted that you are about at the moment, sp ... this edit probably should be revdel'd. It is clear that the contributor (who is having some issues with signing) has tried to fix things while logged out, thus revealing their IP. What do you think? - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not obvious that the IP is the same person. If the editor asked me directly I would do so. See also Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

IP edits

Thanks, Ed. I hope they listen. It seems that every time I look at the board there's IP issues, very often of this kind. I think we have too many editors that are trigger-happy when it comes to IP edits, and I wish I had a better answer than to threaten with blocks. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Jack, Sheodred's Back

On 1 Dec 2011 you topic-banned the editor "Sheodred" from edits relating to Irish nationality. The ban ended on 1 Jan 2012. On 2 Jan 2012 Sheodred changed the nationality label of John Tyndall and George Gabriel Stokes from "British" to "Irish" without trying to justify himself on the respective discussion pages. On the discussion page for Tyndall there has been discussion about Tyndall's nationality label in 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011. Tyndall's nationality label has been "British" at Wikipedia since at least 2008 and that is supported by the discussion page. Sheodred knows the existence of the supporting Tyndall discussion-page material (he added a comment to it in 2011 though what he said was entirely in error which he himself has since acknowledged elsewhere). He knows that the Tyndall discussion-page support exists, and he makes the edit in defiance of the discussion page, and he declines to defend it on the discussion page. I want to revert his edit, but I fear he'll just revert my reversion like he did last month before he got his topic ban. Based on how he behaved in the "Anglo-Irish" and related debates last month, I don't expect a constructive dialog with him. Can you offer me any advice? If you were disposed to extend his topic ban on the basis of the rules-violating edit to John Tyndall on 2 Jan, that'd be good as far as I'm concerned. But I don't know whether it's grave enough to merit a lengthy topic ban, which is what is called for in my own opinion. His record at Wikipedia shows the only thing he does is edit Irish nationality labels. It's my opinion that he'd benefit himself and so would Wikipedia if he got a lengthy topic ban. Anyway, I'd be grateful for anything you can take the time to say to me.

On 2 Jan 2012 Sheodred made a certain other change to a handful of Irish-connected biographies. The way it was before the change was in full conformity with WP:MOSBIO. One representative of the bunch is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Andrews_%28scientist%29&diff=prev&oldid=469339267 . Also on 2 Jan 2012 Sheodred opened up a related proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Solution_to_the_issues_surrounding_Irish_nationality_and_the_use_of_Anglo-Irish . The only person who has responded to the proposal so far has responded in the negative.

As you may know, Sheodred was blocked for two weeks starting 17 Dec 2011 for sockpuppeting (details here). The following edit dated 28 Sep 2011 by a raw IP address has the hallmarks of Sheodred in terms of content (namely labeling a British national with Irish connections as "Irish" in the lede) and the IP address is in Cork City, where, it is known, Sheodred lives. That does not make it another case of sockpuppeting, and I don't think it merits investigation, but I note it in passing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Parsons,_3rd_Earl_of_Rosse&diff=452851267&oldid=450412401

Seanwal111111 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sean can you explain your actions where you went on a massive revert frenzy on Christmas Eve of all nights (did you really have nothing better to be doing on Christmas Eve?) on the articles I was involved in, Ed can just check the pipelinks to know that I was being neutral, cannot say the same for you, those figures were born and raised, and became notable in Ireland, when Ireland was in the United Kingdom, it makes them no less Irish or British, I also have a proposal on IMOS, a proposal for a lede which includes Anglo-Irish in the lede and nothing about nationality, how is that being POV? A topic ban for me would suit you right down to the ground since you oppose everything I do, the edits I have, do have support for your information from members of the community, but I need to work on my presentation skills for the edit explanations. I am wasting no more time with you Sean, stop stalking my edits, once Ed sees your contributions, he will see that straight away, goodbye now. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to add this late on, but Sean's edits on Christmas Eve are using the pretence of WP:IMOS and the implying of consensus being reached which is incorrect. Not that it is worth much but I dont know if you had time to look over it. Hopefully this dicsussion on the IMOS talkpage will be the last of its kind- for a while at least. Thanks for help on keeping this civil and balanced.Murry1975 (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Makaton unprotection

Could you please unprotect Makaton as consensus has been reached on the talk page to leave te section in question out. Protection is no longer needed. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue on Armenian Genocide talk page

Apparently IP:24.27.71.3 does not understand WP:NOTFORUM and has reverted my removal of a non-constructive statement(s).[28] Would you like to help this individual have a greater understanding of editing on Wikipedia? Since it may be Christmas where you are, there is no rush. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:24.27.71.3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand theoretical perspective of the wikipedia but it is just in theory! NOT IN FACT!!!! I have looked many references of the article and most of them belongs to Armenians!!! So is this neutral view!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fall_of_Constantinople#The_Sheeps_as_.22pretext.22_reason

The discussion in the above link, is appropriate or not for wiki? What the heck the relation between Fall of Istanbul and ARMENIANS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

So another EXAMPLE: WHY THIS LINK http://www.hyetert.com/yazi3.asp?Id=341&DilId=1 is in the reference list? I do not think so this a scientific paper????? web site itself also not in a neutralview??? SO DO NOT TELL ME WIKI IS ALWAYS IN NEUTRAL VIEW.... 24.27.71.3 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

I have some concerns about your post on the AE report on Tuscumbia.[29] Whereas you mentioned the rampant sockpuppetry, you failed to mention the anon IPs which infest Armenian-Azerbaijani-Iranian-Turkish articles.

These IPs[30], [31] have canvassed to have edits reverted on articles that fall within AA2 guidelines. The most recent canvassing has initiated an edit war[32] a possible 2nd edit war[33] and these reversions[34],[35]. Undoubtedly, once Verman1 is reverted then the others that have been contacted by these anons(and any I have not found) will revert back to Verman1, thus initiating another edit war.

Shouldn't these IPs be blocked, since in all likelyhood they are editors involved in AA2 that have simply logged out? Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these users[36],[37],[38] they seem to be quacking. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, please leave this post here for me to consider. Don't withdraw it unless you have changed your mind about these edits violating policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous IPs[39][40][41][42][43] calling for reversions(on pro-Turkish/Azeribaijani editors talk pages) and reverting the work of editors that are attempting to follow policy and procedure. If they appear stale, it is because the individual(s) are using a different IP. Lately, I have noticed numerous ones from Ankara, which are calling for reversions and adding information that does not have consensus, while not engaging in discussion. There are also a few that lead back to Baku.

Back in April 2011, I encountered numerous IPs originating from LA(and surrounding areas) that posted on pro-Armenian editors talk pages.[44] These IPs appeared to be associated with user:Phoenicians8[45]. Though Phoenicians8 was indefinitely blocked, the IPs continue to post on pro-Armenian editors talk pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider if there is some simple action that could be taken in response. The canvassing doesn't look good. Do you know anything about past socks that were based in Ankara? These IPs often don't appear very sophisticated. Getting a solution for the Kars article might be a step forward. If we knew what articles were involved, semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally do not know of any past socks based in Ankara, though my interaction with AA2 is limited to the medieval era(writing references) and reverting the removal of references and referenced information(past & present). I have seen edits done by user:Noraton which later have been canvassed by an IP from Ankara and vice-versa. Since the IP that has done the reverting on Kars is doing the same edit as user:Noraton[46]. It seems to be too much of a coincidence, at least to me. I do know that my edits are being watched since the latest IP is now writing in Turkish to hide his/her canvassing[47].

Semi protecting Kars will not force Noraton or the IP to discuss anything on the talk page, since they already have added what they want. Noraton had already asked for a 3rd opinion and since that opinion did not tell him/her what he wanted to hear, he had decided to insert the information regardless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that some admin action might be justified:

• Kars (possible AE complaint)
• Alternate names of towns, buildings and geographical features (Armenian vs Azeri) in a variety of articles (possible AE complaint)
• Editing by IPs who are engaged in canvassing for one side of the ethnic divide or the other. This might go to SPI if it were convincing.

Some patient person would have to write these up with a full complement of diffs. Not likely to be done by me unless you can wait a couple of months until I have the time. If you desire to organize this I could advise you on when you have enough data. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would gladly accept any help regarding this issue. I do not have any experience writing up complaints at AE or SPI. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kars appears to have some kind of naming issue. If you are familiar with it, can you tell me what you think would be a reasonable compromise? Also, do you consider yourself an involved editor for purposes of AA? I have noticed that you sometimes edit on the same side as pro-Armenian editors but you seem like more of a content contributor who just happens to edit in the area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand, to have another name in a different language there has to be a cultural connection. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), "Relevant foreign language names(one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." I have yet to see evidence on the talk page that proves Azerbaijanis used to inhabit Kars in the past(since neither Verman1 nor Noraton seem interested in presenting facts and the IP is not required to discuss anything!). If the issue of "sister city" is to be the deciding factor then the German, Norwegian and Georgian names should be represented as well. I was involved, but only to indicate that the IP in question does have a connection to user:Noraton. To file at AE or sockpuppetry would be futile, since by the time it was "considered" or "acted upon" the IP would have changed(as already indicated) and continued on with its canvassing. This is all moot, since the IP has added the information back and I am quite sure there will be no discussion regarding any facts on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Something which WP:AE could easily do would be to forbid changes to alternate-language names by anyone who had been notified or sanctioned under AA. If I remember correctly this was once done in an Eastern Europe case, for people mentioned on the WP:DIGWUREN page. Unfortunately it would restrict you from making such changes, since you were notified under AA. The restriction might conceivably be extended to IPs since this is an area plagued by sockpuppets. Do you think this would do any good? EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, since I have no real issue with alternate language names, despite my reverting Noraton and his/her sockpuppets. If editors that have been notified and sanctioned under AA2 are restricted then IPs should have even more restrictions covering AA2 articles, including canvassing. What also should be added is anyone reverting/editing in response to IP canvassing should also face sanctions. I believe this will halt many edit wars that seem to flare up out of nowhere. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we are discussing Kars, perhaps you would like to notify user:Erlik.khan of AA2. His/her edits[48], appear to be battleground mentality. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the reason for Erlik.khan's edit.[49] What irony. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Ban

Hi ED. Could you please reply to my post about my Topic Ban evasion clarification? I think I didn't evade my ban until 10 September, and I find this sanction irrelevant. --Verman1 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please review my request?--Verman1 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I've been out of town. After checking the original sanction notice left on your talk page on April 9, I agree that the terms of the ban were a bit mixed up. It was said to begin on 9 April and run for six months, but the ending date was said to be September 10. The ban was clearly intended to run for six months, and it was unambiguously entered in the AA2 log with that term. If you had noticed this at the time, you should have asked for clarification. I am not impressed by your immediate removal of the ban notice from your talk page, which seems to violate the rule about not removing sanctions currently in effect, at WP:BLANKING. Since getting the matter clarified was within your control, I am not convinced that your current ban should be set aside. If admins become convinced that you are able to edit neutrally elsewhere, you might be able to ask in the future to have your ban lifted. Over the time that I've been aware of your edits, I see no improvement in your approach. The advice that admins have given seems to make no impression on you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of Sheodred

Ed,

Just a question about your indef block of Sheodred. Was this based on some community consensus? I saw repeated discussions around concerns about both Sheodred and MarcusBritish (including proposals for topics bans) but I didn't see anything conclusive come out of it.

Without community consensus, don't you think that an indefinite block for a single edit in a wider content dispute is just a little OTT (regardless of the editors narrow contributions)? One consequence of an indef block of this sort is that they can appear to vindicated battle field-like behavior in other deitors.

I am involved in discussion related topics at the IMOS, so I am not about to reverse the block (and I'm no fan of wheel warring).

--RA (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for community review of the block if you wish, but I would prefer that the initiative for unblock should come from User:Sheodred. He already knows how to file unblock templates, and he is the only one who can make assurances about his future behavior. If you check User talk:MuZemike#Query you will probably conclude that I'm not the only admin who has run out of patience. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer it also. However, I would sympathise with his comments left in reply to the block. It takes two to tango and the behavior of Sheodred's dancing partner did little to raise my admiration.

There is no doubt issues around a small circle of editors warring over this issue. It is an odd one because the level of disruption caused to the wiki is very small: it doesn't really matter if Tyndall is described as "British" or "Irish" and having the article flip-flop between the two is of little consequence. However, it is the behavior between editors that is very worrying. More than the edit warring, IMO it is that which needs to be addressed.

My concern regarding Sheodred's block is that it is not only out of proportion but, since it is applied to only one belligerent in this issue, it doesn't address the real issue: the hostile behavior between editors. Indefinitely blocking one does little to correct behavior in another, and may even embolden them.

What's your view? --RA (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the actions of editors towards each other should be looked at and sanctions given. From what i seen, MarcusBritish was very much in Shoedred's face as he was in return making matters worse. I'd safely assume that MarcusBritish is currently feeling like he got one over Shoedred and pleased that he escaped sanction for his own poor behaviour. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

While I think Sheodred was silly (and told him) it is the case the MarcusBritish went over the top in sustained provocation. The thing which disturbed me was when he threatened to contact Sheodred's University to get him disciplined. I almost made an ANI report on that one, but it was all over by the time I got home from a trip so I let it go. However that sort of threat is not good news --Snowded ^TALK 11:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcusBritish entered this case in December as a kind of self-appointed nemesis of Sheodred. I was unhappy with his actions but so far as I can tell he did not get involved in any revert wars on Irish nationality. Since the December 1 AN3 case my focus has been on taking all reasonable steps to be sure that the nationality revert war stopped. When Sheodred came back from his one-month topic ban he plunged right back into the revert war on John Tyndall, That is the new information which I felt justified the block (I had been hoping that Sheodred would change his approach when his ban expired). If others feel that the behavior of MarcusBritish needs an admin response, they can raise that issue on the noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the block of Sheodred and the behavior of MarcusBritish. Thank you. --RA (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

NLP

Sorry to bother you, but you have previously warned Encyclotadd about personal attacks. The same attacks were repeated on the NLP talk page but replacing my name with "the most active editor". Its pretty obvious this is not going to stop. I asked him/her to strike the comments yesterday with our a result and s/he has been actively editing since.

In addition we have another SPA account Congru in attack mode here. Again I asked for those comments to be struck, but my request was deleted with the comment "You are becoming beyond a joke".

A brief glance at the edit history of the NLP talk page will show the way they are editing in support of each other. I don't think its sock puppetry, but there are a series of external NLP sites which have been making similar accusations to those of Encyclotadd and we have had a whole series of SPAs over the years. I have been collecting evidence for a possible meat puppetry case but this is a difficult one. We are currently in the middle of a spate of attempts to modify the article and these come and go every few months. As it gets to the point where an ANI case becomes appropriate things go quiet.

That is for context, at the moment we have a very disruptive pattern of comments on the talk page - not using evidence, making various accusations etc coupled with the personal attacks by these two editors. Given that one has been warned I wondered if you would take a look at it. Any other advise appreciated. Thanks for your time. --Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And today we get this set of accusations, repeating the same old nonsense yet again. He hasn't even done his research properly, the wikipedia article on me makes it clear where I was born and neither myself or my family have ever owned property in the location specified. Oh and repetition by editors here. At the moment we have four SPA accounts, three created in the last few months all making identical accusations --Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a thick skin as does anyone who edits on those articles, but sometimes it gets a little too much. --Snowded ^TALK 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE

FkpCascais's request for review of his topic ban from ARBMAC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I apologise EdJohnston, but as I was indicated by WGFinley to appeal my sanction at WP:AE, however, I found more reasonable to try first to explain the events to you and him, as you were the ones who agreed for my sanction. I left a message at WGFinley´s talk page and I please ask you both for just 5 minutes of your time. FkpCascais (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC) The thread which you filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Trolling and disruptive behavior in discussion does not make me more sympathetic to your position. You are one of the participants in a mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic that went on for more than a year. It is easy to believe that one or more of the participants in the mediation aren't very good negotiators when something runs that long. The mediator, Sunray, asserted on the article talk page on 22 June 2011, "The main reason the mediation has lasted a long as it has relates to the inability of participants to conform to WP behavioral policies." EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC) As you can see, Sunray was responding to another user (the same I am complaining at the report you mention, coincidence?), and I ended up working closelly with Nuujinn, the editor who ended up making the final draft and who had extreme difficulties dealing with the same user I complained. Perhaps we should ask Sunray about it, would you agree? Regarding the report, how can you be sympathetic (or not) to a report I fill to report obstruction of discussion that took place for 3 days while the article was protected, and where trolling was included? What do you mean by that? Anyway, I was still not presented a single diff of anything out of policies that I have done. I completelly fail to understand your position, as I was the one who didn´t edit-warred, didn´t added tendentious edits, limited myself to discussion, and reported when nothing else was possible. I did absolutelly everything as the polices recomend, please confirm it. I am sorry to say, but I am starting to see bad excuses to justify my intentional removal from the discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Over a period of time, we see that there are editors in certain areas of ethnic dispute that do not seem able to reach compromises with others. It is not always a simple matter to see who is more responsible. But editors who follow the correct steps of WP:Dispute resolution can usually get to an acceptable outcome without resort to admins. Admins are not referees; editors are expected to have their own negotiation skills. The lengthy post at User talk:Wgfinley#Please... is not persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC) I was sanctioned for WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:TE. I didn´t done any of them. I never doubled any venue (it was allegedly for my Jimbo´s thread, which is different from any other), and I didn´t edited the article... I am the one being obligated to loose time, while none of you provided me a sigle diff where a specific policy can be seen as broken, and by now, both of you seem to be ignoring the diffs I presented where is clear than none of my actions were disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Come on EdJohnson, by now is pretty clear both of you are avoiding to review this sanction of mine, and you are completely unable to provide any single diff of mine to justify the sanction simply because there is no diff to be presented, as I didn´t done anything wrong. You are just making games with me, telling me to be concise so you can give me generalistic excuses, and when I get into details, then you say you have no time to read it... I presented you both a detailed chronological diffs of the events. Both of you just give me weak excuses, "you forumshop" when I show you that I didn´t, you say "you made tendetious edits", when I demonstrate you that I didn´t even edited, you find allways something else... now you even go as far as "disliking" a report of mine, or blaming me for the lenght of the mediation... come on, ridiculous. You can´t demonstrate my foult in even one of these accusations, and even if you could, lets suppose, in one of them, do I deserve a 6 months sanction? I already suffered an unfair sanction from FPS, and I took it bravely without having one single problem with 6 months 1RR/48 limit. Now, I am not here to be sacrificed again. I am really not sure why are you doing this... I notece now how the two of you were preparing the ground at my AE, and naive me, I didn´t bothered to paint you the picture as I had consideration for you and I thought you want ever do a mistake as this one... I am allways repeating, I am able to clarify you whatever doubts you have, but I start to think that you don´t want me to clafify anything, you just want to stick with this unfair punishment. FkpCascais (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC) It is fine if you want to ask User:Sunray and User:Nuujinn to comment here. I've already asked User:Causa sui. He is the admin who decided to protect Yugoslav Partisans for three days on 20 December. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Having checked the discussion between you and Causa sui at User talk:Causa sui/Archive15#Further protection needed I think I see a problem. You admit that the people on the other side have 'advantage in numbers.' Per the principles of WP:DR it is up to you to work with others and see if you can persuade *them*. In your discussion with Causa sui you admit you are in the minority, but you want Causa to keep the article protected anyway: "Causa sui, I just want someone to help me to enforce a discussion in order to archive consensus and avoid the same old situation that lead us here." What do you mean, 'enforce a discussion?' If you try to persuade the others but do not succeed you might consider opening up a WP:Request for comment to bring in more people. Asking admins to enforce the *minority* position that you favor is not part of their mandate. If the attitude you present in the Causa sui discussion reflects your usual approach to these matters, it does suggest why it might be hard for you to negotiate successfully. If you find yourself not convincing the others after a thorough and wide-ranging discussion you should let the matter go. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC) If I come to be hypothetically completelly wrong on the discussion, how can I be punished so severely for having only discussed? I didn´t edited the article, I didn´t edit-warred, and I took a break long before you punished me. I only discussed. How can I be punished for discussing? That was the first part, the second would be if you are willing to see if I am "wrong", or not, because I am certainly not some maniac ignoring sources, I have my reasons and they are backed by policies. Also, the other users took the opportunity to add that edit while User:Nuujinn was on hollydays, a long standing editor who shares the same concerns about the same edit and sources, as seen Talk:Chetniks/Archive_5#Discussion_of_content (see bottom). The issues are not that simple. First there is an issue about having only a minority of sources describing events as such, and second, and what was mainly in question here, would that be enough for WP:LEDE?. You can´t punish me for following the policies and discussing. If you notece, I never opposed adding the content into the article (I said it repeatedly), but I did opposed them to add it streight to the lede. Neverless, I was always open and favourable for a 3rd part to check things and help us. I have been very carefull there. I can explain you everything, sumarised of course, about the sources problem. However, even that doesn´t change the fact that even if I come to be wrong, how can I be punished if I limited myself to discuss? FkpCascais (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC) You have been a participant in more than one long-running discussion that failed to reach a conclusion. That tends to reflect discredit on some or all of the parties, since we expect people to be able to work through the system to reach agreement, without any need for admins. The case at WP:AE was a complaint about your participation at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans. It stated: It is evident that FkpCascais is gaming the system and does not wish to participate in a proper discussion, but get users who disagree with him blocked by any means necessary and coerce admins. This is just the latest episode, but Fkp has a history of using whatever evasive techniques possible in order to dismiss sources and sourced information: he misquotes policies, seeks further protection, and flat out ignores sources. When all this failed he went on this spree you see above. Although you edited the article itself only minimally, it is hard to see you as participating in the discussion in good faith. Your complaint at ANI on 22 December seems particularly misguided. Then you went to Jimbo's talk asking for AniMate to be *sanctioned* since he responded to the ANI and did not favor your position. It seems you are prepared to attribute bad motives to anyone who disagrees with you. The original complaint that you were gaming the system appears justified. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) (If I can just post a quick comment here, I do not intend to further participate in this thread.) While I am, of course, a participant in the discussion myself, I think it is an objectively demonstrable error to generalize guilt with respect to the length of this dispute. I submit that FkpCascais' activities in all these discussions, unlike those of most other participants, consist for the most part of attempts to suppress, manipulate, and even blatantly ignore sourced material brought-up by others. No similar claim can realistically be made of any other participant. In all these months and years, I dare say I cannot remember the user ever bringing-up a single source he has researched himself, and I cannot recall a single occasion when he wrote an even marginally noticeable contribution to any of these articles. Yet he sees fit to repeatedly, again and again, attack even the most acclaimed publications and scholars on the most inappropriate, personally-invented, and offensive grounds (such as that of their ethnicity, e.g.). But that of course is just the first line of defense with FkpCascais; as one can note on this talkpage as well: he is incredibly persistent and motivated. There are threads and threads dedicated to FkpCascais' various source-evasion tactics as even a cursory glance can show. The fact that the user is agenda-driven is blatantly apparent, and I am not afraid to say he is a textbook-definition POV pusher who cares very little indeed about actual facts and sources. I do not care if he's sanctioned or how severely, but no matter what this fellow simply must be warned to adhere to WP:V. The problems will resurface again and again until this user's immensely disruptive problem with adherence to sources is solved one way or another. When someone brings up six sources he needs to know he won't have to argue for days with FkpCascais because he personally thinks their claim is "exceptional". The hours upon hours of wasted effort towards "convincing the unconvincable User:FkpCascais" need to be diverted towards improving the article. -- Director (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC) OK, instead of responding to this propagandistic essays, let´s see events chronollogically: INTRO: Article Yugoslav Partisans, discussions Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation, Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute and Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Protection. 1 - DIREKTOR insers porly sourced material and edit wars to keep it in place. 2 - I notece it and open a discussion. 3 - "Others" get upset with me. 4 - I analise the edit and expose its flaws. 5 - DIREKTOR intentionally avoids content discussion and diverts into personal remarks. 6 - I keep cool. Peacemaker admits sourcing problems in the edit. 7 - DIREKTOR&co. keep on loosing time and making personal remarks, waiting for the protection to be lifted. 8 - After ANI, he rushes and brings the same sources Nuujinn has already expressed concerns for. 9 - Causa sui has good faith and recomends discussion instead of edit-warring. 10 - Just as I suspected, only 5 hours after the protection was lifted, DIREKTOR reverts and restores the same challenged [porly sourced edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yugoslav_Partisans&action=historysubmit&diff=467461484&oldid=467432783] (notece the nationalistically based edit, adds ethnic cleansing to Serb Chetniks, and makes a separate section "Croatian Partisans" where he removes in top of that, the source about ethnic composition about Serbs being majority among Partisans in Croatia). 11 - I take a break, I don´t revert, I don´t edit, I´m fed up. 12 - Knowing I´ll be a stone in their shoe and challenging their unsourced edits, Peacemaker makes an effort to improve the article. However, their will to eliminate me and make total possession of the articles make them to continue to try to eliminate me: first at ANI then on Wp:AE 13 - (13, coincindence number?) Some admins, for unknown reasons, decide to give them all credit, and none to me, and I got 6 months of topic ban without even knowing well why, and without breaking a single policy. About DIREKTOR, I need nothing to say, better leave others non-involved to do it. EdJohnson, DIREKTOR is a highly tendentious and problematic editor, who never works towards consensus, but allways to eliminate editors disagreing with him. He has a constant win/loose approach that makes working with him impossible (many can confirm this). Over this issue, many had left, not because he prooved them to be right, but because they simply don´t have time to constantly fight with him. One rightfully opposing him with policies should never ever be punished just because that is the easier solution. This is becoming a serios matter on WP, and he continuosly gets to manipulate the situations with support often using unfair methods, turning him from disruptive into a victim. One alone finds itself really in an extremely hard situation, and this is really too much, as I did (as mostly) absolutelly everything by the guideline, and even so, you got manipulated, incredible! For God sake, I counted him over 80 reverts on Chetniks article alone, and I was lazzy to go further! Please check it on the edit history of the article. The same situation happends in all other articles he choosed to own. FkpCascais (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (Older post now, as DIREKTOR has commented above. This was the answer to your last comment directed to me) - The fact that consensus is not archived at those discussions is my fault? Should I ignore WP policies just because many other users want to? I don´t think so. You are taking the words from a user who is actually in disagreement with me (without any valid diffs, btw), giving him all the credit, and ignoring my reasons. I had all the right to ask for help at ANI (notece I never asked no one to be blocked, another missinformation), as I was the only one by then who analised the sources. Even Peacemaker agreed with me at the discussion itself! I asked them to bring the sources, and they didn´t bothered, bringing them only after I complained at ANI, something I waited until the last moment (hours before the protection will expire), and the same one Nuujinn already expressed many concerns (they were actually gaming the system by not bringing the sources until the last moment, so I couldn´t actually see them). Also, you can see how the only uninvolved user commenting actually said the exact opposite and was way harder than even myself towards the user I complained about. Now, what happend afterwords at the report is simply not my fault. An admin simply should not privide direct phalse statements at ANI reports (and AniMate insisted and made it twice!). As it is a matter of sysops, I asked for advice at Jimbo´s page, is there a policy against it? Anyway, what do you mean that the report was "misguided"? FkpCascais (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC) The editors who complained at AE seem to be saying that you argue endlessly and tend to evade the issue. What you have presented here on my talk page seems to be an example of that. Let's go back for a moment to your protection request to User:Causa sui. You seem to think that it was unfair that there were more people on the other side of the debate, and you wanted the article protected in the version that you favor. Frankly, this is silly. I have been told by User:GiantSnowman that you make good contributions to football articles, and I would urge you to continue your work there. You do not seem to be able to reason calmly and persuasively in these nasty ethnic matters about former Yugoslavia, and it seems unlikely you will be able to do good work there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC) EdJohnson, numbers don´t matter, arguments do. You didn´t presented a single valid diff showing my contributions violate any policy, neither that my complain was not rightfull. I am as equally good editor at any area of WP because my approach is based on policies, only that here seems to be a particular reason to remove me, even without having any valid diff for that. It didn´t matter to me which version was in place, I just wanted to reach consensus and get help from some admin to assist us. It is all but fair to say that "I avoid the issue", as I am the only one directly adressing each and every issue and allways supported by diffs. You are very pretentious to "send me" to edit football, while punishing me without being able to present a case against me. Your last excuse is that you beleave I wan´t be able to make good work there, no words for that. I was direct in my answers to your questions, please see them. FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC) As Fkp has requested "valid diffs", here they are: 1. Laz makes a series of edits in which he inserts information previously discussed and removes paragraphs of referenced information. [50] He is reverted. 2. You are then canvassed by Laz into the matter. Him being fully aware of your views. 3. You then proceed to policy shop in order to have information which you simply dislike not included. You use whatever possible "roadblock" you can, but despite this all these attempts fail: First you said it was an exceptional claim [51] Then you ask for more sources: "Is that the best source? You need further backing" [52][53] Then after another source is brought in you claim it's unreliable. [54] [55] Then you claim that there is "no scholar consensus" while failing to present sources of your own at any point. [56] Now you argue WP:LEDE. 4. You go to Toddst1 and request intervention. [57] 5. You report DIREKTOR for "trolling and disruptive behavior" and urge "adequate actions" be taken against him. [58] This leads nowhere. 6. AniMate voices his opinion on the matter. You do not take a liking to this and accuse him of "misinforming" and "lying" [emphasis in original]. [59] You report him to Jimbo Wales and state that your "attempts" at the Admin's noticeboard were "sabotaged". [60] 7. You open an SPI on participant, Peacemaker67. [61] This also fails and you ask the admin who closed the SP investigation to "reconsider". [62] Again it's evident that Fkp games the system: He policy shops using whatever reason to get rid information he simply dislikes. He rampantly admin shops and attempts to coerce admins into doing his bidding: first to Causa sui page for protection, second to Toddst1 for intervention, third to Jimbo Wales' for the sanctioning of AniMate, and then to HelloAnnoying for the SPI of Peacemaker. It's also evident that Fkp sees Wikipedia as a battleground. He views "DIREKTOR&co" as a collective opposing force who carry out "offensives" [63] and even considers the Yugoslav Partisans article to be in our "possession". [64] -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I discussed with you the sources, and I mentioned the polices to be applied, even Peacemaker agreed your edit was not good. It doesn´t matter if LAz called on my talk page, or not, because I had already been active on discussions on that article, and I had it on my watchlist for some time, despite the edit being from an exact area we were discussing earlier. About the reports, please present reasons why you beleave the reports are wrong (you too EdJohnson, as you said one of the reports was "misguided", please explain). PS: I see no braking of policy in any of the diffs you presented. FkpCascais (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC) While I was writting this comment, you closed the thread without me knowing, so don´t charge me now for "not respecting your closure" or something (I wouldn´t be surprised by now)... I wouldn´t have written this comment if I knew the thread was closed. Just as note... FkpCascais (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AE 2

What will happen with the second AE report on Son of Setanata here, as you have mentioned it in closing the first will I remove it or do you just archive it? Mo ainm~Talk 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have closed it as moot. The editor is already blocked for behavior that includes his edit warring on 13 January, so new inquiry is not needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 17:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AECOM page edits

Regarding the AECOM Wikipedia page, this is user Ekr219. I understand where you are coming from regarding company-generated content on the AECOM page. Our communciactions are frequently picked up by top-tier media outlets. To meet your objectivity requirements, we will begin to link to AECOM items from these news outlets so there can be no mitake that these publications trust our content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekr219 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi EdJohnston. I am trying to clarify a question for me these days. Could you please have a look at this thread. It seems to me there is some problem in proficiency of dealing with situation where WP is being used as a vehicle for ethnic conflict. Questioning reliability of a source or judging about its biasedness based on mere ethnicity criterion is something very new for me in WP... I would appreciate your opinion. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 05:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder about my question. Please respond as soon as you have time. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 14:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification

Hello. Could you please clarify me if flags and emblems are within the scope of the topic ban imposed to me? FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What FkpCascais is asking is whether his Balkans-subjects t-ban prevents him from opposing my recent edits on the subject of Yugoslav flags and emblems. I know this because he told me so on my talkpage and tried to avoid the sanction by starting one of his conflicts there [65] (since obviously my talkpage it isn't technically a Balkans article). For the record, I would not be at all surprised if FkpCascais continued such activities as this for the next six months. -- Director (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop stalking me around? Your edit warring and breaking of WP:BRD on those articles is enough. You immediatelly took advantage of my ban to change what was established by the intervening admin back then (the separation of articles) and now you are edit-warring a completelly different user (actually a hr.wiki admin). You ask him to discuss, while it is you who was reverted and should not edit-war and discuss instead. Try to be a policy following wikipedian for a change. FkpCascais (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FkpCascais, the wording of your ban means you must avoid the *topic* of the Balkans anywhere on Wikipedia. Thus it includes the discussion of any flags used in former Yugoslavia. You are not allowed to discuss Yugoslavia-related issues with anyone, even on user talk pages. Thus you should not have asked this question of DIREKTOR. You can still ask questions about the scope of your ban with admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruslik defacing RfC

Hi slakr, Salvio, & Ed,

User:Ruslik0 is now defacing the RfC, and even edit warring over it. Could you speak with him? There's something very wrong here.

1. As the RfC page recommends, I set aside a section for "Threaded discussions". I also created sections for references and quotations. I specifically asked that comments be kept to the discussion section, because we need to keep the refs and quotes spare and accessible so we can refer to them easily, and I knew there would be someone like Ruslik who would not be able to allow a ref or quote pass without pasting his POV all over it. (Actually, I figured it would be him, because he has in the past said that quotes are "lies", even when they are accepted as legit by everyone else, and linked to their sources online, as these are.) And voilà, he pastes his comments all over the quotes. (He is, of course, welcome to add any bits I overlooked, or to correct any errors I made, or to add completely new sources that support his POV: that's what these sections are for.) And he posts comments like "You are again lying here" where I literally clipped and pasted the lines out of the ref. Does he not understand what a quotation is?

2. There is a discussion section dedicated to the tables and 4 bodies Brown says are DPs but the IAU does not. It's called "The tables"—a neutral title, where people can say whatever they like. Ruslik added a new section, called it "Remove Orcus, Sedna, Quaoar and 2007OR10", and put it at the very top, presumably because he thinks it's the most important. It says the same thing he already said in the tables section, and so is completely redundant except for pushing his POV into the structure of the RfC.

And, of course, when I clean up his mess, he edit wars over it.[66][67] (I didn't do his work for him and separate out and save his legit edits. He can do that himself.) If we cannot have a serious RfC, we'll need to go to mediation. But maybe I'm unduly pessimistic and he really doesn't understand how this works, or is one of those people who comments on references without actually reading them, and might respond to instruction from you? — kwami (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Every day a new problem with the same user...

I will please ask you to either remove my topic-ban (as there is scarse evidence of any disruption by my side; and you even ended avoiding to answer my questions earlier where I still fail to understand why am I topic-banned at all), or otherwise at least warn DIREKTOR about his every-day incidents. The latest one is directly related to me, as he abusively cites me in discussions:

---

DIREKTOR´s comment:

@Joy we had two disambiguation pages, two flag articles, and two coa articles - now we just have two articles. The reason why the articles remained separate for so long is that FkpCascais (who's now topic-banned for tendentious pro-Chetnik editing) really liked to have an article where the royalist Yugoslav coa was displayed as prominently as possible. That's why I call them POVFORKS. No matter how you look at it, its nonsense to have six or four utterly insignificant stubs instead of two marginally useful articles - especially when that is common practice. By the logic used to seperate those two we might also add two more articles for the semi-royalist/semi-socialist WWII Democratic Federal Yugoslavia as well, since it too had a whole seperate set of flags and emblems along with a different political system... -- Director (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ex13, I have to ask, are you restoring the Karađorđević symbols article at the behest of the pro-Chetnik user FkpCascais? I have to ask since he has been lobbying all over the place. -- Director (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

This is pure abuse and provocation. I have explained numerous times to that user that I am not a Chetnik simpatizer, and if that user doesn´t have any other arguments at those discussions but needs to bring derrogatory (in his way) labeling of me, than really seems to be something wrong here. I will openly and directly tell you that you sanctioned the wrong person here. While there is not even one clear diff to explain my t-b, this user collects every-day incidents... and this one on my expenses. FkpCascais (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

He is also providing phalse information, because I never lobbied no one over that issue, what I did was just opening a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology a long time ago, and you are free to confirm if I ever lobbied anyone as DIREKTOR claims. This is what I am confronted every day here on WP, and that type of comments and provocative phalse presentations is what is the base of all unhealthy environment that the Balkans topics have. FkpCascais (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FkpCascais is on safe ground as long as he makes no Yugoslavia-related edits and does not discuss Yugoslavian issues with other editors. If he were to request someone else to make an edit for him that would be bad, but I see no evidence of that. I encourage DIREKTOR not to refer to anyone as a 'pro-Chetnik user.' User:DIREKTOR might be losing his temper at Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia and perhaps he could take a break from that discussion. The best possible place to have a nationalist or ethnic dispute is on an article about flags, and I assume that we'd all rather avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I am mentioned by name I feel I have to say something. I myself am surprised that FkpCascais is somehow offended at being described as "pro-Chetnik". I do not think that is a personal attack, the Chetniks were a war faction - its like saying someone is "pro-British" in his dispositions. And moreover, I think just about anyone involved in the previous Chetniks discussions can attest to the fact that the user is indeed always, and I mean exclusively, very strongly disposed towards the Chetniks. Its all he does at those discussions and I believe it is very obvious on every single talkpage where they took place. Personally, I very much doubt the user is indeed offended by the comment, at least to the degree he professes. I suspect this is simply the latest attempt to prevent developments on that article. After trying to discuss on my talkpage, and trying to get permission to edit "flag articles" (without mentioning they were Yugoslav flag articles), it seems he's now actually trying to get me blocked so I can't introduce the changes.

I mean, its as I said, FkpCascais is likely not going to stop coming here and trying to get his sanction lifted or trying to take "revenge" on me and others who participated in his having been topic banned. Far from taking a break from Yugoslavia-related articles, he's continuously scanning them and trying to influence them. I am personally sick of seeing the user lobbying with this or that admin to have me and others sanctioned. It is a continuation of his forum-shopping behavior and admin-coaxing. -- Director (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvasing

I'm a bit worried about the circumcision page you've recently protected. Jayjg, one of the authors there has caught canvasing before. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087744.html . If you could keep this in mind, I would appreciate it. Gsonnenf (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki evidence

I just saw your comment about user:TrevelyanL85A2 at AE and your warning to him in his user talk. You say that you would consider sanctioning him based on the conclusion that he's an acquaintance of mine. Please clarify something: When I was first accused of being a meatpuppet in this thread, both admins there agreed that in the absence of any existing Arbcom ruling about an editor being a meatpuppet, AE cannot create a finding of fact about it. Ultimately I was topic banned based on a technical connection to Captain Occam due to WP:SHARE, but that obviously isn't the case with TrevelyanL85A2.

As far as I know, all arguments for TrevelyanL85A2 being a meatpuppet rely on off-wiki evidence, which can't be discussed in public. Standard policy for any decision involving off-wiki evidence is that it can only be made by Arbcom, not at public noticeboards like AE. Arbcom is already aware of the evidence in TrevelyanL85A2's case since Mathsci has emailed arbitrators about it numerous times, as he stated in the amendment thread. Being aware of this evidence, Arbcom has declined to take any action. Stifle and Slp1 explained in the earlier AE thread why only Arbcom can make a finding of fact about someone being a meatpuppet, and that's doubly so when the decision relies on off-wiki evidence.

This matters to me because I've had many problems with WP:OUTING directed at me in the past, and the reason why off-wiki information can only be examined by Arbcom is to avoid outing issues. Arbcom is aware that this has been a problem for me in the past, and I was told here that they've decided I should not have to answer questions about TrevelyanL85A2 in public. I'm very concerned that your suggestion to handle off-wiki evidence at AE is going against policy as well as against the decision Arbcom has made, and that it will encourage more of the same outing problems that these things were meant to prevent. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer that you make any arguments of this kind in the AE thread. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea - posting about this at AE will just encourage more of the same outing problem. In the comment I linked, Jclemens said that people shouldn't be asking questions in public that involve off-wiki info. But if I post something about this at AE, other editors will likely view it as an invitation to challenge me about this, and ask more of the personal questions that they shouldn't be asking. This happened once already in the amendment thread, and I don't want to encourage it to happen again. Since you are suggesting that an editor be topic banned at AE based on off-wiki evidence, I think it should be your responsibility to make sure this decision conforms with policy and with what Arbcom has decided. In this case it doesn't look like it does, so I am politely requesting that you reexamine your decision. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that anything is on the agenda for discussion, since I've enacted no topic ban, and I've proposed that the AE complaint be closed with no action. Not obvious that there is anything to appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to appeal a ruling you've made. I'm just questioning your suggestion that in the future TrevelyanL85A2 could be sanctioned at AE based on off-wiki evidence that involves me. Your suggesting this will encourage other editors to post private information about me in public. If you could amend your statement at AE to say that decisions involving off-wiki evidence need to be handled by Arbcom, as is normally done, that would be all I'm asking for. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No reason why you can't make such a proposal at AE. If you are not content with how AE handles things, you can appeal to Arbcom. Your theory about off-wiki evidence needs more study, and I'm sure the AE admins can reflect on it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have clarified this with Arbcom now. See Jclemens' response here: "Functionaries who have identified to the WMF are the only approved recipients of off-wiki information, and within the functionaries, the arbitrators (and, to a lesser extent, checkusers) are the ones charged with acting on it. The non-functionary user base, admins at AE included, are not entitled to receive privacy information, such that it makes no sense to expect them to act upon it." This isn't open to interpretation, it's a matter of policy. And your suggestion that in the future editors can be sanctioned at AE based on off-wiki evidence is not consistent with policy. Agreed? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard everything you've said but I don't think it implies the conclusions that you've drawn from it. Since there is currently no action on the table in the AE thread, and I haven't asked you for any off-wiki information, I can't see what action you need from me. I am not planning to revise any of my prior statements. If Arbcom wants to take any formal action, they can do that in the context of the A/R/A which is still open. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about the current AE thread, it's about what you've said you'll consider acceptable at AE in the future. The basic problem is that Mathsci is able to post off-wiki information about other editors more or less whenever he wants, even though it's against policy. Most of the time, admins don't do anything just because they don't want to make a decision about it. But what I'm hearing in your case is that you actually think it'll be okay for off-wiki information about me to be handled at AE, which means that if Mathsci brings it up again there, you won't consider that a problem.

Am I correct that you think it's fine for off-wiki information to be handled at AE? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In due course, I hope to propose what to do at AE. Unless someone else handles the thread first. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit-warrior at Qawwali

Hi Ed,

Just so you know, he posted this on my Talk page yesterday after I reverted his edit:

I want to constribute 1000$ to you for adding name in current qawwal list of my favourite qawwal certainly a right candidate. I can offer huge amount to you for helping me in my regard u can email me at videoshooterz@gmail.com

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea that so much money was on the table! (insert your favorite joke about unrewarding volunteer work here). EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Request from SonofSetanta

Ed, now that you have had your wicked way with me are you intending to commit yourself to ascertaining what is going wrong on the Ulster Defence Regiment article? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you believe is going wrong there? EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To avoid obfuscation I'd prefer we had this discussion in private. There is an e-mail link on my profile. I am absolutely serious about this. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is seldom any reason to discuss AE business by email. Exceptions might be: (a) information about your own account that should not be public, (b) real-life harassment, or (c) sock puppetry. If it's none of those, why not explain it on the wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you I have genuine concerns which I understand I can request to discuss confidentially. I wish to put those to you and take your opinion and advice before making the matter public. I have raised my concerns with the Wikipedia Information Team and they have suggested I discuss it with admins. They have made another suggestion too which I will act upon after taking your advice. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, send it to me by Wikipedia email. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to initiate? Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. In the future, Special:Emailuser will do it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Diplomatic Missions by Country articles

Hi Ed, over a year ago you helped drag into line one editor who was very eager to promote his ideas of Sahrawi nationhood on the Diplomatic Missions by Country articles. He was penalised for editwarring and has not returned, until just recently. I would be grateful if you could explain to him that wholesale policy changes to what goes into and out of an entire category article needs to be debated, and not just initiated by somebody with a one track agenda and peripheral interest in the articles (Talk:List of diplomatic missions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). Then again, feel free to investigate his side of the story. Kransky (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi EdJohnston, I briefly forgot about the TBAN and made an edit to Catholic Church and abortion in the United States which I promptly reverted. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, am I allowed to discuss abortion-related parts of articles on talk pages if I don't edit the articles? NYyankees51 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. Per WP:TBAN you can't make any edits related to the topic on any page of Wikipedia, including talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just checking. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Irritating POV/OR pushing

Hi, you have had some past dealings at User_talk:Buddhafollower. That contributor is continuing to push a POV-y, unsourced and usually clearly original research position across articles relating to the Kashmiri Pandits & people whom they claim to be connected thereto. Most recently, here. There are sometimes gaps of weeks, but the stuff returns eventually. Could you possibly have a word? I am getting nowhere & I have tried both templates & dialogue. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Buddhafollower. It looks to be a case of slow edit-warring at Kalhana. So far, the user has never left a talk comment. They just cruise around Kashmir-related articles adding unsourced stuff that must reflect some kind of POV. It is easy to tell that their changes don't have consensus, but I don't know what angle they are pushing. Maybe he is just adding his own pet theories about the old history. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It is slow warring across various Kashmir articles, as you say. I have an idea of what their POV may be but won't bore you with the details; suffice to say, it relates to the Indo-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir, and especially in relation to the Hindu/Muslim religious aspect. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

IP needing a block

Ed, the IP editor (71.184.188.254 (talk · contribs) ) edit-warring on the Gold Standard article discovered that their IP address has changed and promptly returned. They are at 71.174.135.204 (talk · contribs) now (see their first edit, then the subsequent edits). Mind taking a look to double-check and blocking the new IP? Hopefully they'll be on this one for a while ... Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and double-thanks for the semi for the duration. Hopefully this will trigger some good discussions when the IP returns. Ravensfire (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Don 2

You have not stated as to how long the full protection will last. Surely you understand that there are sections such as Accolades which require updating as and when the awards are announced? I am willing to start a proper discussion regarding BO figures, though it was decided to keep the figures out of the infobox for some time. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The protection will expire on 6 February. The problem is that random drive-by editors keep showing up to war over the movie grosses. As yet no agreement has been found on the talk page as to the proper source to use for the movie grosses. I urge you to participate in the discussion and try to persuade the others. If you can write some new text for Accolades, put it on the talk page along with an {{editrequest}} template to get an admin to make the change. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check your inbox

Hi Ed, and hope you're well. I have e-mailed you regarding a matter of interest to the Arbitration Committee on the address I know you to have most recently used. Please check your inbox and respond to the message at your first convenience. If you did not receive the e-mail, please contact me through EmailUser and I will re-send by return message. Thank you, AGK [•] 16:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor needing block?

Two weeks ago you warned One Night in Hackney and others (including me) to stop asserting that other people were reincarnations of previous identities. One Night in Hackney is now repeating this assertion here[[68]]. May I ask you to block him immediately as you said you would? He is also engaged in the type of gaming and wikilawyering which caused my recent block. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that four editors are in discussion over content at the moment and reaching concensus. Hackney is notable by his absence. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not discussing? Au contraire! I replied to a message on my talk page regarding this saying "I'll wait for the (hopefully) finished draft before commenting though", funnily enough the time of that edit is before SonofSetanta's post above. I'm not even giving the allegation that I have even mentioned reincarnations the time of day, since I didn't... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Another editor's talk page is not the place to debate this. You as an experienced editor should know this. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap

Thanks for your comment at User:Penyulap's Talk page. Frankly, although I respect User:Elen of the Roads, I wasn't crazy about the result, or in particular her reasoning, at WP:3RR. I have absolutely no faith that Penyulap can contribute in a constructive manner (except possibly sporadically), but I've bowed out of the SOPA issues for the moment, although I continue to watch the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Elen's close was unexceptional for a report that looked to be old. (It missed being acted on earlier). I reviewed your original report at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Penyulap reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Stale). It seemed there was almost a case for a block, but there was not quite enough information, and I didn't have time to dig into it then. If you make future reports,

1. Consider using http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php, which outputs edit summaries as well as diffs
2. Explain in words what the dispute is about
3. Consider notifying the person you are reporting that you have filed at the noticeboard.

This is a case where the other party appeared well-intentioned but perhaps not as cooperative as we could wish. It is awkward to block someone who is actually trying to do the right thing if there is no opportunity for a discussion with them at the noticeboard. When there are not many admins around, you are more likely to get a quick response to a 3RR report that is very easy to understand. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice, but, as you say, the only reason it was "stale" was because it sat on the noticeboard. I reported it right away, and although I know there's discretion in applying 3RR, it clearly fit the language of the rule. I notified the person before they violated it - I've never notified anyone after they've violated it and I've reported it. Doesn't seem to be required as it is, for example, at ANI.

As for the editor, I have to disagree with you about his intentions. He has a poor history, and I accord him no good faith whatsoever. He's not stupid, though, and, therefore, he may make occasionally worthwhile contributions, and he may, less frequently, say something that makes sense, but there's very little doubt in my mind that he's a liability to the project, and it's only a question of time until that becomes clearer to those who can do something about it. I know this sounds somewhat argumentative, but I'm just being candid with you - it doesn't mean I don't take your advice seriously.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Wesley Mouse's talk page.
Message added 11:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Verman1

Hi Ed. How are you? I'd like to draw your attention to the recent edits of editor Verman1, whom you topic banned from editing articles related to Armenia/Azerbaijan on January 4. Since then, however, he has made a few edits in the mainspace of these articles. Perhaps he has forgotten about the ban or is testing its limits? I don't know, but I figured that you could take a look at it. Thanks. Regards.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Don 2

M.EdJohnston I understand that you're only trying to protect the article of Don 2 from edit waring, but as the main contributer to the article and the one who has been working on it extensively for the last 3 months, I don't think full protection is a good idea. The article is terribly outdated and a simple edit request for the accolades section has been hanging for 2 days without an answer. So, would you, please, either try to give more attention to the article or return it to its semi-protction state. Thank you. --Meryam90 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible edit warring in Russophobia

Hi EdJohnston, I'm here to ask for an advice on what to do with the Russophobia article. There are several users, many of them which were at some point either close or part of the WP:EEML, and now try to delete an image of a Finnish concentration camp and all the section text talking about the policy of Finnish occupational administration in Russia. I tried discussing the section with them, but reverts continued: [69], [70], [71], though I found sources explicitly claiming concentration camps were part of racist policies. I want to ask you to have a look at the article/ talkpage, and advice on what to do. Thanks! FeelSunny (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Stopping discussion and avoiding answering the questions is hardly an attempt to reach mutual understanding on what the content should be. As stated repeatedly the camps section has its own page, yet there is strong urge in certain people to duplicate the information on the Russophobia page even when there is no sources to link them. Racist issues do exist however that does not mean it would be automatically related to Russophobia. Also the image in question has been proven to be staged so it should not be in the article in the first place, unless clearly noted as being a propaganda photograph. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I would not engage in any discussions on a user's talkpage.FeelSunny (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear EdJohnston,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rubén Rivera

If you'll recall, a few months ago, you semi-protected the page due to an edit war over whether or not the "baserunning gaffe" section should be included in the article. When I suggested that user Muboshgu was the one responsible for inciting the edit war, you suggested that someone find more, better sources for the baserunning incident.[72]

Well, I finally got around to proving several good references for it (including being #9 on Bleacher Report's top 25 biggest screwups in baseball history), but Muboshgu, once again, immediately undid my edits and removed the incident from the page. When I asked why on the talk page, Muboshgu started concocting excuses. He/she questioned the credibility of Bleacher Report (even though it's one of the top 500 websites in the world), questioned why I didn't focus on plays ranked higher in the list (even though all of those plays are already in their respective Wikipedia article), and suggested that the Rivera play wasn't anywhere near as significant as the #1 play on the list, the Bill Buckner error, which Muboshgu claimed would fetch "millions" of hits in a Google search (this is untrue; as I pointed out in my reply, both plays actually have similar numbers of Google hits).

Thus, it seems Muboshgu has no bona fide reason for continuing to exclude the play from the article. Clearly, the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that the play should be included in the article, as evidenced by the numerous edits and revisions of the section itself, as well as the numerous attempts to restore the section every time Muboshgu deletes it. The play is obviously significant to Rivera's career, since it cost him his job (the Giants cut him a week later, and he never played another major league game). And the play is clearly memorable, as evidenced by the articles from reputable media sources.

My reply to Muboshgu's latest excuses are being ignored, even after I posted on his/her talk page requesting a response. I'm trying to settle this the proper way instead of starting another edit war, but Muboshgu's "my way or the highway" attitude is making it difficult. What would you suggest as the next course of action?

Thanks for reading. - Hatster301 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on epic page

Hi Ed, I've posted a reply to the accusations of me edit warring on the epic films page. Contrary to the attack on me, I have discussed it with users and I had planned on editing that page as I had been doing since 2007. Some of the edits that I made included fixing dead links and removing material that has been uncited. I understand users attacking me on WP:POINT but my intention was to bring a greater understanding to a genre with actual citations on that page. Could you check our my reply and get back to me? Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Union of Agricultural Work Committees and World Vision International

hi - could you help with some basic edit warring taking place at:

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_of_Agricultural_Work_Committees&action=history

and

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Vision_International&action=history

by an identified editor who won't discuss the issues. not sure what i am supposed to do. any help and advice would be appreciated.

i have used an RS but it is being removed without explanation, etc.

thanks, Soosim (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Wading in recklessly...) I'd suggest actually discussing it politely with the newbie, rather than just reverting and hoping he reads edit histories. You might also be surprised to learn the the jpost has little credibility amongst Arabic readers (which his username would imply) when it says/alleges that group X are (or are connected to) Palestinian terrorists. Try finding sources with a better reputation for balanced coverage, or present the other side at the same time per wp:NPOV. You don't need a source that explicitly says "X are not on list L", it is fair to simply cite list L to support such a statement. By all means explain what was wrong with his edits, but be careful not to personalize it: discuss the edits, not the editor. Good luck. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks dog. i have posted to both talk pages. let's see what happens... Soosim (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:Do'a Zayed#Controversial articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you comment...

.. on User_talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen#Inappropriate_use_of_rollback this thread on my talk-page, regarding an ip-user which you've blocked? Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. I don't fully understand the problem at User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen#Inappropriate use of rollback. My previous connection to this problem must be via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive166#User:97.87.29.188 and User: 99.19.47.119 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h). At that time I described one of the IPs as 'too dynamic to bother with.' A set of IPs causing trouble on Climate Change articles was listed at User:Arthur Rubin/watch#Global warming / climate change. I'm not sure I can provide much help with that. Presumably your new concern has been dealt with at User talk:JamesBWatson/Archive 38#Need to reset the clock on a 30 block you imposed. If not, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lvivske

Hello. Can you please look at editions of user Lvivske in the article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia? His changes sre not according to the cited cources, or he simply cancells text with strong references: [73] GlaubePL (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You are continuing to revert the higher-bound number for the death toll while a discussion is still going on on the article talk page. If you are not satisfied with the current talk discussion, you should consider opening up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page regarding whatever issue you think is most important. This might facilitate reaching a consensus. Once a solid consensus is reached, anyone who reverts against it will be very conspicuous. Just now you appear to be one of several edit warriors who might be considered equally guilty of prolonging the dispute. (You seem to have made five controversial edits since 24 February). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed, we're on edit war territory now with pretty much every thing I do getting revv'd by GlaubePL. I'm willing to voluntarily step away from editing it for a day or two and continue on the talk page as I have; but I do think a neutral non-descript version should be in the lede until we reach consensus, and the 1RR should keep up if this is going to be tit-for-tat reversals. (in this case, enforcing only one source for the article when the discussion is considering dozens). GlaubePL's reasoning on my talk page was that we should "use updated and neutral saources (like Motyka) and not autdated and biased [ones]"...I don't know about you but I don't like where this cherry picking is going if all Western scholars are painted as "biased"--Львівське (говорити) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lvivske, which "Western scholars" are being painted as biased? Western scholars essentially base their work on Motyka (in some cases on Siemaszko, who gives even higher numbers) and quote his numbers.VolunteerMarek 22:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Might want to ask GlaubePL to confirm who is or isn't biased.--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand your response. You said "I don't know about you but I don't like where this cherry picking is going if all Western scholars are painted as "biased"" - so my question is simple: WHICH "western scholars" are being painted as "biased"?VolunteerMarek 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I just searched for every instance of the word "biased" on the talk page of the article. There is one instance of me using that word in an essentially irrelevant context. There's one instance of the word being used by you to refer to Piotrowski (a professor at University of New Hampshire - a "Western scholar"). There's another instance of the word "biased" being used by Faustian in reference to Siemaszko (which I essentially agree with). There's two or so instances of you using the word "biased" in reference to Motyka and then responses by others, including Faustian, that Motyka is not in fact biased. There's no instances of GlaubePL calling anyone "biased".

So sorry, but your claim that "Western scholars are (being) painted as "biased"" is without basis - unless you were referring to your own usage.VolunteerMarek 01:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It was in reference to this comment that stuck with me--Львівське (говорити) 02:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed Johnston, glad to see you take care about 1RR, but what about Verifiability? Lvivskie misquotes so many sources - examples see here: [74]. GlaubePL (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on...now you're just intentionally misrepresenting my edits and cherry picking 'sources' to contradict me. You are fully aware of the number bounds on the chart we are working on. If I edited the lede with those bounds and neglected to update the refs it's because we were still sorting out what counts - not that I was misrepresenting the sources.--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed, [75].VolunteerMarek 03:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I made my case on the complaint...I don't feel I broke 1RR on March 2nd. He said he'd withdraw if I self reverted, and I [essentially] did on 1 of the 2 areas he had an issue with. Want me to take a voluntary time off the page? How long? I likely won't be adding to it anyway for the time being until I finish gathering more sources....I don't think it's exactly fair that I can't set a neutral lede until we reach consensus without begin reverted by the 2 guys on the other side of the fence of the dispute.--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI notece - FkpCascais

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Ed, About two months ago, you may recall that user:PCPP was subject to two AE hearings for violating his topic ban, which covered Falun Gong, the Epoch Times, etc. I believe he may have violated that ban a third time with this edit[76]. His other recent activities here[77][78] are consistent with long-standing patters of behavior wherein PCPP perfunctorily deletes large amounts of sourced content, always without discussion, when that content is in some way critical of the Communist Party of China (other examples of this: [[79]][[80]][[81]][[82]][[83]][84][85][86])

What would you advise in this case? Frankly, I am loathe to initiate another AE myself; I would rather not court further antagonism from PCPP and his perennial supporters. As I noted on the user's talk page, I am already feeling hounded by this user, who seems almost exclusively to edit pages where I've recently made substantial contributions. Your advice, or direct intervention, would be greatly appreciated.Homunculus (duihua) 14:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Check my edit history, I have not edited anything worked on by Homunculus since the previous discussion on Confucius Institute, so I don't know why he's dumping material from 2 years ago here. I removed the stuff on John Liu (which was there before he even edited recently) because it blalantly violates WP:BLP, which includes poorly sourced material accusing Liu, an elected US official, of being an agent for the Chinese Communist Party - a serious charge which would reflect poorly on Wikipedia. As for the terrorism section, Homunculus added a bunch of highly controversial material which suggested that Mao's guerrilla campaigns and the Cultural Revolution are acts of terrorism - the former misleading as the author of the source he used clearly stated that guerrilla warfare is not synonymous with terrorism and never implicated Mao's guerrillas as "terrorists", the latter falls into the controversial definition of state terrorism / political violence whose categorization as terrorism is disputed and little to do with the commonly accepted definition of terrorism as done by non-state individuals. If anything, I'd say that Homunculus's editing patterns are distinctly anti-CCP, and I've yet to seen one edit that's not related to the politics of the PRC.--PCPP (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

PCPP, this is not the place for content discussions. I think some of the material you removed from John Liu page was problematic, but that doesn't change the fact that you likely violated your topic ban. As I said, if you have a legitimate reason to believe content is problematic, you should raise it on the talk page and ask others to intervene, rather than violate your ban. As to the article Terrorism in the People's Republic of China, if you believe the sources were misrepresented, I suggest you explain why on the talk page discussion rather than simply deleting everything. Finally, I have checked your edit history, and have strong reason to believe you are following me. The John Liu and Terrorism in the PRC articles are a cases in point.Homunculus (duihua) 17:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The question about John Liu might be handled at WP:BLP/N. The material that PCPP removed does sound a bit conspiratorial. I admit that it comes from the Epoch Times but it is a stretch to think that removing it violates PCPP's ban on Falun Gong. Can you not find any mainstream sources that comment on the relationship of John Liu to the Chinese government? I think your issue at Terrorism in the People's Republic of China would have to be raised at a noticeboard, or via a new RFC/U. The definition of terrorism is very tricky and it seems risky to try to start a conduct case against another user based on diffs from such a contentious article. As PCPP has indicated in his response, some of the diffs you included above are from 2010, so they are quite old. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Quick points:

• I provided diffs of PCPP's past behavior to establish that this habit of deleting material without discussion is a long-standing pattern, and PCPP has been counseled against engaging in this kind of behavior on many occasions.
• It's not my intend to add sources to the John Liu article supporting a connection to the Chinese government; that material predated my contributions to the page. Some of the sources and claims that PCPP deleted do seem plausible (eg. Liu received an award from the Office of Overseas Chinese Affairs, a Chinese government organ. I would also note that the source here, the Epoch Times, had *some* rather prescient coverage on Liu; it reported campaign finance irregularities years before the NYTimes made the same discoveries. I wouldn't dismiss it entirely, but it should be employed with caution). Other material that was deleted, such as that sourced to renminbao, was speculative and likely violations of BLP. I'm not objecting to the removal of this content per se, but thought it worth bringing up, particularly since PCPP was warned about breaching his topic ban in this manner.
• Regarding the terrorism article, it wasn't my intent to draw you into the content dispute. The page was kind of a wreck before I started working on it, and my objective is to bring it to good article status. I have written hundreds (thousands?) of words on the talk page explaining my edits and proposals, so when PCPP simply deletes large volumes of sourced content without discussion, it's profoundly discouraging. After years of dealing with it, I'm burning out.

I'm not sure what the remedy is here. Is it possible to ask an administrator, or some other judicious editor with relevant expertise, to help with the terrorism article? I kind of feel like I'm crying in the wilderness here, and would just love to work with someone with a real interest in collaboration (and, ideally, some knowledge of the topic).Homunculus (duihua) 05:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I can't be of much help. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I'll see if I can't find a more fitting venue to address these concerns. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 05:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hi. There is a new comment in the 3RR section.

 — Breadbasket 12:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Manchester

Hi.

I have just written and added the following descriptive context regarding the duke's marriages. Even though this is the responsibility of the contributors concerned, I have chosen to do it.

Their relationship ended somewhen in the 1980s, and he moved to the United States early in the 1990s. They were formally divorced in 1996.

It is thereby made clear, at least for any normal person, that he was double-married in 1993.

User Andy Dingley then added/reinsterted ‘while still married to Marion Stoner’. This is a pleonasm, but what I react on, is that he in the edit summary writes ‘deleted yet again by user:BreadBasked’. It is not deleted; it was baked into the context which I have written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Montagu%2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&diff=480148532&oldid=480148452

This article has earlier been full of repetitive wording. I think that also ‘while still married to Marion Stoner’ is too heavy together with my context (it has to be either, and not both) and dangerously close to being repetitive, so I suggest that you as an administrator take a look at it and consider whether it is superfluous.

By the way, I have also added two tags concerning sources. I bet that they soon will be removed; tags that I earlier have added, have systematically been removed. Keep an eye on the article, and you will see it yourself.

 — Breadbasket 14:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Montagu%2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&diff=480149664&oldid=480148532

 — Breadbasket 14:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't raised these points on the talk page at Talk:Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester. That's where this discussion belongs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Buddhafollower

• Buddhafollower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You blocked Buddhafollower in January for persistent failure to abide by our policies. I have just had a trawl through their contributions since that date and have had to remove everything that had not already been reverted etc by someone else. The user is still pushing a Kashmiri Pandit pov, is still failing to source a single thing and is still conducting clear original research. What do we do? This is starting to look like long-term incompetence. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I did the last block on 24 January. If you believe his edits since then are sufficiently disruptive, you might propose an indefinite block at ANI. Let me know if you propose admin action there and I may comment. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Asked at ANI & mentioned you - see here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

NY Public Library woodwork

Do you remember your 3 months block imposition for a NY Public Library IP? Well, they're back, doing similar things to Kashmir related stuff. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A six-month block may be justified, but please open up a report at WP:SPI so the data is collected in a central place. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved per User talk:Salvio giuliano#The Kashmiri Pandit guy may need attention again. By registering an account a person is offering to distinguish themselves from people making inappropriate edits from the same IP address. Those who won't take that step risk being tarred with the sins of others, so there is some logic to the practice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I rather thought that you would look in on Salvio's page again after your initial message there. I am grateful to you, and others should be! - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Link Names

Minor point: Re "The acronym WP:ARBEE is available even though WP:EE is in use", Even if WP:EE was available, I think the shortest names should be kept open whenever possible for things like WP:V and WP:RS that get a lot of use. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ek Tha Tiger

Please take a look at my reply here. Thank you. Secret of success (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Shocking isn't it, the amount of disruptive editing of Jiddu Krishnamurti since the semi-protection was removed! 79.79.250.166 (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being discussed at . . .

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Suggestion for new crats. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. EdJohnston (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Warnings to both parties

Take it to outsiders? What did I hear when I asked for help? TL;DR… What did hear I when I asked for eyes at page protection? That one or both of us may be blocked. Can you understand how discouraging dead silence and warnings are when someone is harassing you. Why isn't lying and harassing me a civility issue? Why wouldn't I use 2 or 3 reverts a day? Not that you have a problem with any of them. OWN, I suggest you look at all the edits that I didn't revert, it was no knee-jerk reflex, and I suggest you read Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing, there's finally another user talking: now what is it I'm support to do different? Why doesn't it matter that he continued reverting but I didn't? That he made no effort to establish consensus but I have? What dispute do you even want resolved? What kind of description is "doesn't like change"? I don't like rapid, incompetent, tendentious changes supported by slackened guidelines, but I shouldn't do anything about it, fine. Can you please see your way clear not to reward him for harassing me with specious 3RR charges.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When you continue as a willing participant in a multi-page edit war you are probably going to end up looking just as bad as the other guy, regardless of the merit of your arguments. User:Chealer was ill-advised to file at 3RR, but if you thought he was breaking policy you should have stopped sooner and waited for others to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

“I shouldn't do anything about it, fine”… from day 1, don't interfere; being harassed, stay away. That doesn't come as a surprise. Terse takes time and TD;LR doesn't fill anyone with confidence, but thanks for making it an advise-type warning, not a harsh-type one.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty you can do about it. Continuing to revert loses respect for your position, but opening an WP:RFC about one of the articles would be totally correct. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about RfC. For example, can someone lose respect for "a closely paraphrased cited direct quote" being wrong by definition? Frankly that sounds like an ad hominem, and I have no reason to believe your impression of how much I reverted isn't wildly exaggerated: why would you bother to investigate if you couldn't even be bothered to read what I wrote? So fine, reverting is some kind of sin and I'm a sinner who neglected to violate 3RR, so will you please do something about Chealer's ongoing harassment at the closed 3RR?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The two of you don't seem to understand you were lucky to get off without a block. People don't get to conduct furious edit wars across multiple pages and not get unfavorable attention. The fact that you had logic on your side in some of the cases was totally undone by your bad behavior. Feel free to take this to ANI if you think you'll get a more favorable reception there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I think I'd get dead silence. But what puts the lie to your hypocrisy is the fact that Chealer is busy conducting another edit war and continues to harass me at a closed 3RR but apparently you could care less. No doubt I'm to share in the blame for that too.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for boxing that.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi. Regarding the edit warring at Ek Tha Tiger, User:Wikiwriter786 has issued a warning for me two days after the dispute here. Also, I find no arguments from him except bad faith comments in his talk page saying that Wikipedia is not about winning. Sounds totally generic. And, he has broken the 3RR in the page, by restoring the images for the third time, as another user had reverted the edits after me doing it twice. Does it merit a block? Secret of success (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you opened a discussion on the article talk page about this? EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The article barely has any traffic. So, I opened up a discussion on that user's talk page, and asked him to explain the significance of those images but all that I got were generic arguments seemingly based on WP:ILIKEIT. Please take a look at his talk page. He has reverted the removal three times, though not within a 24 hour period. Regards, Secret of success (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A message on user talk doesn't count if the case is going to be reported for edit warring again. You need to use article talk. Make your objection known at Talk:Ek Tha Tiger, and if necessary link to the discussion in some more central place such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to bring in outside opinions. Is there any chance that the second person in the picture is the user who is conducting the war? Since he claims to have taken the picture, it would be in order to ask him if he knows who the other person is. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, he has been blocked as a sock of an editor. Thanks for your help. Secret of success (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for visiting the Teahouse!

Hi! EdJohnston, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here Sarah (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Consistency and fairness???

I have left a message for you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiqi55#Your_unblock_condition_from_December --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The indef block of Wiqi55 will hopefully address your concerns. All parties should learn something from the recent discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Chesdovi AE Appeal

Chesdovi is specifically mentioning you in his appeal over on AE, although I'm certain you would see it on patrol, I thought I'd let you know. --WGFinley (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Family Murders

Rvoight (talk) has again deleted refrenced text from the article despite it being semi-protected by you on March 11. I have tried to get him to provide refs to support the deletion without success. Can you suggest the next step to take? Thx. Wayne (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Make a report at WP:BLP/N. Some of the published material appears tabloidish. If a dispute exists as to whether a certain source is reliable enough for inclusion, you can ask about it at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User Lvivske at Rinat Akhmetov article

Hello, EdJohnston,

I would appreciate your comment on user Lvivske actions at the article about Rinat Akhmetov. To my mind, he has been violating Wiki BLP policy via POV pushing in the article, namely flooding the article with rumours, POV statements and unproved allegations served as facts. He's been putting criminal accusations almost everywhere in the article, grounding mostly on external sources, disputing at he same time my contributions. Thank you in advance, --Orekhova (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 24#Rinat Akhmetov appears useful. I recommend that you try to respond there to the questions by User:Sleddog116, who in my view is expressing mainstream Wikipedia opinion on how this kind of dispute should be resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential SA IP socks

Are being discussed on WP:ANI#Dreadstar in classic turn of the WP:BOOMERANG. Whether they warrant any action is another matter. Based on your blocking of his work IP addresses, I though you're probably the most familiar with the case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The edits are similar to SA, but that's all I can say. The IP is not in the correct geography (Boston vs. New York). The closest relationship to SA's IP is the exchange at the bottom of this page, where the two IPs find themselves in agreement and in opposition to Dreadstar. The 128.* IP is obviously SA. The writing style does appear similar, and the disavowal of being a sock seems forced. 'I just happened to drop in here with my perfect knowledge of Wikipedia procedures to make a small improvement.. ' If there is more of this kind of behavior on fringe articles then semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the 7xxx are in Boston, but 69.86.225.27 is in NY. Although it hasn't edited in a month, I don't thing anyone else has used it. I think it's his home line net, probably with static IP. The Boston ones could be a friend/relative etc. given that they were seldom used. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the NY IPs, IP 69.86.225.27 is not used at the moment, but another IP with the same New York geolocate and with the same behaviour is currently active on "cold fusion". Regarding the Boston IPs, it may be noted that the Boston and NY IPs never edit at the same time and the Boston IPs tend to be on weekends. How to proceed ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we discussing just

• 71.174.134.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• 76.119.90.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ?

If you know of others, please list them. The urgency of any SPI report may depend on the volume of controversial edits. SA tends to draw attention to his own socks by using them to make complaints at admin boards. He often expresses great indignation and makes negative comments about Wikipedia policy. That might explain his use of 76.119.90.74 at ANI. If it's my decision to make, I am unlikely to take any action on a sock that is not currently active. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• 24.215.188.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.86.225.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) see "editing from home" [87]

--POVbrigand (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So far the evidence against 24.215.188.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems of most concern. I am not sure of doing anything yet, myself. You could file at WP:SPI if you want. In the recent ANI, nobody stated that this is a correctly vanished user who shouldn't be mentioned by name, so you might consider opening an SPI under the editor's original name. I can see the logic of blocking 76.119.90.74, 69.86.225.27 and 24.215.188.24 for abuse of multiple accounts. I would not do so unless it turned out that others believed this was an appropriate step. So if you want anything done in the near future, an WP:SPI is best. I offer no prediction of success in such a venture, it's just a step that is open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the semi-protection of my talk page. An IP hopping sockpuppet has been stalking my (and others) edits recently. Yobol (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. If protection needs to be extended you can always request it at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

ISBNs

It may amuse you to know that I have once again fired up Helpful Pixie Bot (as SmackBot is now known) to fix up ISBNS. It is much harder than last time, for various reasons, such as cite templates taking "id = 8427394892" and Googlebooks having ISBNs embedded in the URL, but on the other hand I am using a programming language instead of AWB. One of the first things I found is that some of the 979 range has been allocated, namely 979-10- to French books. (Also about 10 more "small" countries have ranges.) Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

I'd be interested to see a log of the new ISBN results. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The first pass is fixing hyphenation mainly. The errors are being categorised in Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs. We picked up one that was wrong on 3000 pages, so that was a good fix. Next dump I'm going to try and work smarter, and a report could be part of that. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

For your attention

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I regret I have too much on my plate currently to expend effort on WP procedures. I'm posting this to insure awareness I have communicated to you. Thanks & best, VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied, with a suggestion to make your views known somewhere on the wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed, is this what you had in mind when you gave that advice? You know there are interaction bans in place, right? I see no need to go thru normal WP procedures for this, as I too have too much on my plate. But I am asking you, openly, to act upon this. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is still within your power to limit the drama, if you are willing to do so. Should I block him for ten minutes to spare your sensitivities? Your creation of the cartoon risks offending some people and evidently it has. When I replied to him I should have remembered that he couldn't post about you anywhere on the wiki due to the IBAN. That was my mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reported this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba. Additionally, I am regarding you as involved in this instance due to private correspondence between you and Vecrumba on this matter, and due to what you have posted to him and myself on your talk page above. It is likely inadvertently involved, but involved all the same. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am still WP:UNINVOLVED since I have participated in this matter only in admin capacity. You are still welcome to file at AE and see what reaction you get. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am requesting that you no longer use the tools on myself due to your refusal to sanction Vecrumba for a blatant personal attack on myself in violation of the interaction ban, whilst you suggest that I get a one week block for an edit which didn't worry you. You said yourself, you are expected to enforce these interaction bans, and you have refused to act when brought to your attention. Sorry Ed, but you have not shown yourself to be a neutral admin in this instance, and I don't feel comfortable with you using the tools when it comes to these interaction bans. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's where you said as such in relation to expectation to enforce IBANs. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not taken any action against you in this matter nor have I issued any blocks of anyone. Your preference that I not participate is not something I'm bound to recognize, and you seem to be going out of your way to pursue the route of maximum drama. (Apparently you no longer have 'too much on your plate'). Admins are never *required* to take action if they don't want to. In my opinion the cartoon you are working on is likely to cause controversy, and you ought to be attempting to calm the waters, not roil them. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case that you cite above (from the November 2011 AE archive) you were charged with editing a whole bunch of articles in violation of your interaction ban. While I favored doing something, I was not the the admin who closed the case. If you had made an agreement to stop doing those edits, I would have been happy to see the case closed without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Please, check my request for Sockpuppet investigation in lieu of Baboon43. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The two IPs that you list seem to be Baboon43, but the registered accounts in your report seem unlikely to me. They are also very old (2006 or 2007), so checkusers would not be able to do anything with them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. AmandaParker (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

With regards to Baboon43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who claims that his / her IP address changes "constantly," if that is the case then why 70.54.66.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) shows up as static (See here). Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that 'whois' services could tell whether an IP is dynamic or static. I wonder what they are basing this on. Generally I use behavior to tell if something is static. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since he is still claiming to be a "newbie" and "naive." Please, check the following edits:

• edit by Samia_et (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)),
• edit by Baboon43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and
• edit by 70.54.66.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

They are all the same and done by the very same user. I regret that my request was declined. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Snooker world rankings

Could you have a look at the recent edit history here? I count over 3 reverts by one editor, and would rather not issue a block or continue to warn myself since I am involved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Disregard, this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

bad call

Ed, I have no idea why you have fired a shot across my port side. Does it strike as odd that Carlingford Lough page has suffered years of edit warring and pov pushing yet an RFc and DR have only been raised recently with both Domer and Bjmullan providing only a pov argument to oppose a a Change. A prime example where Bjmullan and Domer have forced through their opinion. [88]. I guess if you are warning me with a probabionary period, should I care? Given that Domer has been able to edit freely during this sanction. Hackneyhound (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I found it odd that he classed that as an example of consensus building full stop. None of you have been doing any Wikipedia-style consensus building over there, but it appears you've been singled out because you're less experienced at this sort of warring than your opponents. Perhaps he is hinting to you that you need to become more like them to succeed? Who knows. Anyway, as the protecting admin, perhaps he can fulfill the request I've had to make because of the fallout from this nonsense, for an unrelated edit to insert some badly needed basic contextual information to the article. I could give my opinion on the actual content in dispute, but it's pretty clear that nothing anybody says about it would be listened to, that's for sure. Neetandtidy (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed. While I can understand the logic and reasoning which prompted your actions both here and here, I do not think they have had the desired effect. Despite one of the SPA accounts being blocked for making a frivolous report, the other SPA continued with the same frivolous accusations. Regardless of the fact that the blocking Admin outlined the frivolous nature of the report, the editor has refused to disengage and instead made bad faith accusations against the Admin. With one SPA account blocked, we have another "brand new" editor show up, who has moved the dispute to yet another article with a clear battleground mentality. They too have now made a report at ANI against another editor. With another of Factocop's socks having just been blocked (I've outlined some of the history of socking here) this is exactly the same spillover situation which another Admin has had to address on Carlingford Lough. I fully support the blocking Admin's call for a CU, as the level of abuse is way out of hand. Thanks--Domer48_'fenian' 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you decide to file a complaint at WP:SPI, let me know in case I want to comment. My own tolerance for Hackneyhound and Neetandtidy is wearing thin. Further nonsense can be handled under WP:TROUBLES now that Hackneyhound has been warned. Do you even understand what this is about? What is the significance of Carlingford Lough? Incidentally are you still under Troubles probation? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep still under probation till April I think, which explains my lack of editing. Needless to say I was not at all happy about it. The short hand answer to what it is about revolves around the status of Norther Ireland. Is it or is it not a country. Hence the issue of "international boarder." On Carlingford Lough, it is like Sarek rightly noted, spillover from the Giant's Causeway article another Factocop targeted article. At least your in on the ground floor on this spillover article, having closed down the Carlingford venue. Hope that helps, and yes I can just see you throwing your eyes to heaven and saying "You can not be serious, that's what this is all about". Who on earth would waste that many socks on an issue like that. LOL. PS: LOL is laugh out loud, just in case it's suggested that it's Loyal Orange Lodge. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ouch!!! Just what every Admin likes to here. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Domer, consider yourself informed that I am not a "brand new" editor, and have never claimed to be one. I am a returning editor who intitially just wanted to make an edit to the Loch article, having seen it come up via the NI talk page. It's protected no thanks to you though, so that's that. Right. Introductions over, now let's get to the holy shit bit. Just so I've got this straight. Ed, you're the one claiming to be the enforcer of the Troubles area right? Or so you told me a minute ago at my talk page. And Floquenbeam is another admin whose also dishing out blocks to people invloved in it at the behest of these rambling complaints from Domer which, while they include diffs, don't ever correspond to what's claimed as reality in the words. Yet Floquenbeam had admitted they know nothing about Domer's history at all, and here you are asking him to help you out in understanding the mess he has precipitated. Do either of you have any handle on this at all from a standpoint of being uninvolved but otherwise informed admins? Or are you just fucking winging it, with Domer pulling your strings left right and centre. I've been here 5 minutes and can see what he's all about. If 'SPA' means only using Wikipedia for one purpose, then he is IT. It warms my heart no end to see you to chatting about probations and when they're up, how he's not done any editting while under it, and presumably a veiled reference to what's planned when it expires. Can someone remind me here which one is the warden and which one is the inmate? Neetandtidy (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to tell Arbcom what your previous account was. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And my reason for doing so would be what exactly? I will not dignify such a bad faith request when editors with records like Domer's are given about as much freedom as they like in their chosen single-interest topic area. The more and more I look at his history (I've probably got through more in one day than you have in your whole editting career), the more obvious it seems that he is playing you like idiots. Are you sure he's still under probation? Have you independently checked it yet? would you even have a clue how to independently verify it? I notice you logged me as a suspicious user already. Cheers for that. If he confesses to all the times he's tag team reverted someone like Gravy on an article, all the times he's made a report to simply win a dispute while hypocritically complaining about such behaviour when it's done to him, every time he's bullshitted and fillibustered his way through a discussion simply to give the impression that he's 'consensus building' to gullible part time admins like you, or to the amount of times he's just cut and run from such discussions only to return and resume an edit war, and all the other games he's played with or without your help, then I might, just might, think about it. But we both know he's not going to do that, and we both know you aren't going to look for it for yourself, so we both know this was a joke of a request. A calculated insult at best, a pure pisstake at worst. As it is, I'm fine with being able to show to the outside world the difference between how I am treated and how he is, by the likes of you, in this topic area, on this encyclopedia. Not that I've done a fucking thing to an article yet, because you still haven't even fulfilled that simple uncontentious edit request. And that's another thing, you called me an SPA for having only done thing so far. I've been here one day. How many new editors do you really think work on more than one are on their first day (assuming as you did that I was brand new). You're a joke man, seriously. You treat everyone like shit on the basis that you can't figure out who does what, yet the worst offenders are the wolves in sheeps clothing chit-chatting on on very own talk page feeding you all kinds of half truths. Neetandtidy (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh Dear! Could it be true (you).--Domer48_'fenian' 07:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

IBAN policy discussion

Hi. Since you commented at the AE request, in light of User:Timotheus Canens comments there, please see the discussion here [89] (related to my comment here [90]).VolunteerMarek 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not being bold on WP:Be bold

Semiprotection of a WP page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was gonna decline the WP:RFP request for protecting WP:Be bold, but then my internet connection crashed and you protected the page. Basically, I think it is a bit ironic to prevent people from being bold on the Be Bold page. However, that aside, I agree a 2-month protection is the correct outcome, and I'm not gonna challenge it. Just trying to tell you what I think. Deryck C. 09:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Omen1229

Hi there,

I would like to let you know that Omen1229 has begun edit-warring in the domain he is topic-banned from: [91]. I know well that this type of matter should be taken to WP AE, however, I got an AE block for a duration of a month for wikistalking in connection with this user[92] in last October, and that is why I do not want to go to WP AE. I discussed my edits with an administrator, and because I did not agree with everything he said ,especially about wikistalking, it resulted in me being blocked for wikistalking by one another administrator who had been a silent-reader of said discussion up to that moment. This does not make much sense, but because I did not appeal it, reporting Omen1229 to WP AE would not be a good idea on my part.

So that I might as well include some history related pieces of diffs with your talk page made by Omen1229, even if he is not allowed to do so in principle:

1. 18:30, 13 March 2012 (edit summary: "deleted "sometimes", there are 40,100 results in google for "dowina devin"")
2. 18:52, 18 March 2012(edit summary: "+3 references for Dowina - Devin"
3. 14:20, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "del repeated info")
4. 16:42, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "Name and ethnogenesis")
5. 16:49, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "manipulation, Roshwald don´t mention Slovakia in a sentence about primordialism")
6. 17:18, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "Are you kidding? This article is about SLOVAKS, not about nationalistic issues")
7. 14:19, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */ new section")
8. 14:26, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */")
9. 14:39, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */")
10. 10:18, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Slovak genetic background */")
11. 09:25, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484492312 by Koertefa (talk) source was not removal")
12. 09:27, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "Slavic mythology")
13. 09:28, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "The statue of Svatopluk")
14. 09:35, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
15. 10:06, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "The statue of Svatopluk")

I suggest you take a decision about the fact that whether Omen1229 is in violation of topic-ban by making these edits ,or isn't.--Nmate (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have topic-banning edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history. I edit only article about Slovaks. So what is problem? --Omen1229 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect said to Omen1229 on 22 November 2011, "I am therefore topic-banning you from all edits relating to Slovak-Historian history for a period of six months." I think Omen1229 should consider the Slovaks article to be covered by his topic ban. That article mentions Hungary throughout, so his edits there inevitably are connected to Slovakian-Hungarian history. I also notice this edit by Omen1229, which looks to be a purely nationalistic edit in service of the theory of continuity of Slovak identity. The edit removes a perfectly good quote from an academic source (a 2006 publication by Cambridge university Press) which claims that the national continuity is unlikely. Omen1229 made another edit here which specifically mentions Hungary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is strange and worrying, if article about Slovaks, especially Name and ethnogenesis is for you "Slovak-Hungarian nationalist struggles". About my Topic-banned: In the first sentence Future Perfect at Sunrise mentioned Slovak-Hungarian nationalist struggles and in another sentence mentioned "Slovak-Historian history". This is clear that he thought "Slovak-Hungarian history".

I also notice this edit by Omen1229, which looks to be a purely nationalistic edit in service of the theory of continuity of Slovak identity. > See again, I didn´t remove an source.

Omen1229 made another edit which specifically mentions Hungary. > This is my big mistake, because I quoted name H*****y up to three times.[93][94] Sorry. --Omen1229 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Omen1229, since you agree that you mentioned Hungary in one of your edits, I take it that you are agreeing with my proposal to avoid Slovaks? You are an editor who tends to favor the Slovak POV, and you are editing an article that mentions the Slovaks' history with Hungarians. I am afraid if you continue, you are risking a block. This is a black-and-white issue so far as I can see. Admins are allowed to widen your ban if they feel that you are engaged in nationalistic editing, under the provisions of WP:DIGWUREN. It is better if you will move to other articles. I can make suggestions if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Omen1229, since you agree that you mentioned Hungary in one of your edits > Yes, but this my edit in talk page is not controversial connection between Slovak-Hungarian history, but I agree it was my fault. I try to avoid Slovak-Hungarian history articles and I see nothing wrong if I want to edit article about Slovakia, because I´m from Slovakia. See Slovaks article again and maybe you will see what is nonneutral POV and who want to create neutral article.--Omen1229 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have left a warning on your user talk page. Please continue the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban violations

Hi Ed, I do respect you as an editor, and have generally respected your actions as an admin; there have been a few occasions where you have been blindsided though. But moving on.... I have made a statement about the interaction breach at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Interaction_ban_breach. Given the need to reduce drama in this area, in future when I see an interaction ban breach, do you mind if I simply bring it to your attention on your talk page for you to act upon? This might go some way to lessening drama, given that AE is simply another free-for-all-battle-everyone-until-last-man-standing like venue. Is that ok with you? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 12:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I shall do that thanks. About the above threat, I generally do have a problem with editors contacting admins offwiki with things for things are obviously not required by privacy, particularly when it is 10 minutes after I am emailed (without having time for responses), hence why I was a bit pissed, prob not so much at you. Anyway, hope you understand that sentiment I held, even if you don't agree with it.

Also, on sentiment, have you had a chance to look over my statement at AE, and my comments on my userpage? Thoughts on that, outside of an AE setting would be welcome. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, another thing, you stated in the above section that I created them. Just to advise you, I didn't create them. Refer to post by Greyhood on User_talk:Elen of the Roads for further info. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of having a discussion here eludes me. The AE is still open for any further comments. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No need for the SPI

Hi Ed. No need for the SPI its all done and dusted. This is some list of socks and it turns out that the two SPA's were one and the same. I removed this foul mouthing attack, but it seems to only encourage more of the same. They have indicated that they will not be stopped from editing, so expect more socks, a lot more. Take care, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about removing comments from his talk page, however ridiculous they may be. Blocked users are generally allowed to make speeches so long as they are limited to their talk page. Usually the person making the speech is unaware that they may be digging the hole deeper (and removing the chance of being unblocked in the future). EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeh your right, let them vent! Lets see who can spot the new account first! Take care, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It can't be! It just can't!.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick back at it again

No further editing has occurred since 29 March. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Ed, I made an edit warring report a few days ago regarding User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick, which you resolved by issuing a warning. Jeffrey did nothing for 5 days but has returned and immediately resumed edit warring at Talk:Demographics of Greater China: [95][96] (oops, meant to be [97]). Should I file another report at AN3 or is alerting you to this continued behaviour enough? – NULL ‹talk› ‹edits› 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I left a warning on his talk page. What exactly is he doing on the article talk page? Is he opposed to the move? EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not clear on what his position on the move is, but he's been warring to try to insert unsigned templates on tags placed by SchmuckyTheCat. The tags are basically (this user was blocked for sockpuppetry) added after the comments of a blocked sock and both Schmucky and myself have tried explaining to him that the unsigned templates aren't needed and make about as much sense as putting an unsigned template after an unsigned template added by someone else. Tags don't need signatures, basically. He seems to think that if he mixes in some token 'extra' edit like adding a space in the signature of one of his previous comments or adding an extra question mark somewhere, it means he can also add the unsigned templates back in and that when he's reverted he can claim vandalism because we 'removed his edits'. I separated out his template additions from his good edits before (you can see in the history and I linked it in the original AN3 report here), but he made another edit mixing them back in again afterwards. He's not an inexperienced editor, he knows how to use diff templates, argue policy and reference past ArbCom decisions. He knows what he's doing and he knows he's being obnoxious when he mixes the stuff we've told him not to add back in again and again. As I mentioned above, I removed only the bad parts of his edits previously and he added them back in again, I don't have the good faith to do so again when he'll just turn around and put them in again, mixed in with another token edit to try to make it harder for us to revert him. – NULL ‹talk› ‹edits› 20:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC) No more lies please, Null. The diff links clearly show that Schmucky and you deleted all my newer comments. And even after I told you that I don't care about the unsigned tags anymore, you and Schmucky kept deleting all my newer comments. And.. even if I added back only the new comments without the unsigned tags, you two are still deleting my newer comments. This is clearly disruptive. You may not agree with my position, but that doesn't mean you can disrupt Wikipedia and delete my comments. Jeffrey (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) You've accused me of lying multiple times now without cause. I'd appreciate if you'd stop doing so. The page history and edit summaries of Schmucky and myself tell the facts quite plainly. – NULL ‹talk› ‹edits› 20:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Alright. Try argue with these diff links that neither Schmucky nor you removed any of my comments: [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] (and pretend that the timestamps 15:03, 22 March 2012 and 07:22, 20 March 2012 don't ever exist). Jeffrey (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) What's the point in responding? You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge what the problem is. – NULL ‹talk› ‹edits› 22:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your report at WP:AIV has been declined

Declined an AIV report
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See this edit. The edits of Aymatth2 are not vandalism. The two of you are having a content dispute. Consider using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Can u reconsider the request. Go thru the history of his changes please.18:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.vikram.b (talk • contribs) This is for you to do. Sorry. You have provided no single diff that is vandalism. Only cases of simple vandalism or sockpuppetry should be taken to WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

reply

Hello Ed. I replied to your concern on my talk page. Thanks! Dehr (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

I always wanted to ask administrators like you of you are a salaried employee of WP or a volunteer or a user like me but promoted to the rank of administrator? Will be glad to receive an answer. Winterbliss (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Admins don't receive a salary. There's a few people around (like User:Moonriddengirl) who are employees of the WMF but also happen to be admins. Such people usually have a separate ID that they use when acting for the WMF. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

AE case

I left a comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment of your objectivity

Your objectivity in the case of Omen1229 is challenged. They are evidences that you and other administrators acted after canvass of users (for example: [104]) whose are permanently in opposition against other users. And the result was always on the side of the canvassing users. They are standard processes how to solve problems like this - for example in the case of Omen1229 here: [105]. Or you could also move this case to Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. But for them its easier to contact biased administrators and the result is sure - liquidation of opponents. You had no effort for a deeper analysis of this case. You can react here: User talk:Omen1229#You were reported.--Samofi (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting a topic ban is not a hard task. Individual admins can do this. I've listed some appeal options that the editor can pursue at User talk:Omen1229#You were reported. Boards such as Mediation or COIN would not be the first choice for an ethnic dispute in Eastern Europe. That is what Arbcom made their WP:DIGWUREN decision to address. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help over this article : Kurdish people

my dear friend we need a little help here : kurdish people ,this guy(iranic) made the page semi-protected ,so kurds are not able to show their own sources that shows they are not indo-iranian for example : our genetis tests ,many other References, that shows we are different from persians. can you help?? http://selenasol.com/selena/struggle/kurds.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.185.118.56 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You've made this report using an IP. Due to the current socking issues at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kermansh, I do not plan to look into this unless you can post here using a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

500 edit proposal

Why not implement in other areas like I/P?--Shrike (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quack quack could you take a look please

Could you have a look at the edits] of this new user please very strong indication sock of recently blocked editor. Mo ainm~Talk 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A chara, flagged this editor in the above tread! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

undoing others work?

i am not undoing anyones work they are the ones undoing my work im trying to contribute to the article and i keep getting reverted..amandaparker is not discussing anything the user has not even approached me on why they object to my edits Baboon43 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are not listening. You are continuing to ignore the requirement of WP:CONSENSUS. If you edit the article one more time (without getting someone to support you) I will file a new edit-warring report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

April Fools day

Is this another April fool day. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Three edits is not much to get an impression from. But if you think that is Hackneyhound, consider filing an SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting my skittles in order, just in case an SPI is required.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably just test edits. I noticed this one earlier, and I remembered this observation by -Sarek. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed, just a heads up on an SPI I've filed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Al-Ahbash

Baboon43 (previously, he has used 70.54.66.158), has removed edit-warring messages twice (here and here) from his talk page, constantly ignores and discredit all the peer-viewed sources provied by the other editors. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind:

• Ahbash follows shafi madhab
• Ahbash follows Ashari doctrine

Currently, he is engaged into edit-warring in the name of "expansion" without even getting consensus from the other editors who have been on that page for years. Please, looking into that. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been handled at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we understanding you correctly?

Would you mind commenting on Nug's interpretation of your post at at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#IBAN_wording? I think Nug is right, but you of course would be the final judge on what you meant to say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have suggestions for how WP:IBAN could be made more precise? Ideally it would become something like WP:3RR where anyone who has learned the technical definition can enforce it without needing to use any discretion. Perhaps IBAN needs to be revised to list out specific items like DYKs or AfDs. Or, in the other direction, it could require that editors succeed in staying out of disputes with one another. That would tend to require more discretion. If they *do* get into a dispute, how do we tell whose fault it is? EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think IBANs are precise enough now (note I am not saying they are wide enough, just that the current definition seems precise). The problem we see, IMHO, is due to editors trying to interpret them more widely. This creates a problem like, hypothetically, would interpreting 3RR as "editor X did not remove/readd the same content, but his new paragraph/edit to a new paragraph adds/removes related content". Now, I am open to discussion if IBANs should list more specific examples of a forbidden interaction, but I am a strong believer that we should not bend/blurry the existing rules, not unless there is a clear and uncontroversial benefit to the project (which I rarely see with arguments for blocks, but I digress here). Anyway, since it is a repeated issue, we do need, IMHO, a clear ruling (in IBAN) over whether ibanned editors can comment/vote on one's another AFDs, DYKs, FAs, and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think such bans are already precise enough, then, do you think it is acceptable for two ibanned editors to participate in the same AfD? Explain your reasoning :-) What if one of the parties has created the article? EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As the iban is currently worded, it seems to me they can (provided that there is no commenting on one another, or direct replying; the latter does raise a question if voting is a reply?). Now, that does not mean they should, and I think we may want to discuss the pros and cons of adding a provision to ibans specifically forbidding this. The question of authorship is related, but I am wary of the "first mover" gaming. What is editor A creates an article related to favorite subject of B - in essence extending the iban into a topic ban? On the other hand we have to consider when an editor is trying to circumvene ibans by a form of tedious editing. I am still not sure about this myself, but I'd think that the latter can be dealt with through regular procedures regarding whether an editor A is stalking B or not, in other words, is he targeting B's articles often, or rarely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Bridgette B

• A couple of days ago, I made a request at WP:RPP for the above article to be unsalted, as she does pass WP:PORNBIO now (and I provided proof). I normally would have easily asked the closing admin to do so (as you later suggested), but as I stated in my reasoning, that admin had a post on his/her talk page indicating that s/he was on a wikibreak. I did ask anyway, but s/he didn't acknowledge it and then even went on to make more edits after the fact. I don't know; maybe s/he doesn't think the situation is important. Long story short, I'm not trying to canvass, but...do you have any other suggestions about the situation? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Consider making a request at WP:REFUND. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has been unsalted. Thanks. :) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My posting in AE

Ed, i posted mu thoughts on Nagorno in AE forum [106]. Take a look. My basic points:

• by keeping this AE request that exists that long risks inadvertently creating an common identity for all the accounts you dubbed SPAs. They can spread their editing activity to articles other than Nagorno - will you then propose your 500/1RR for all articles where I, Winterbliss, Nocturnal781 and Grandmaster's group are likely to lock horns??
• Contagion is setting in. [User:Shrike] suggests to use the 500 edit thing [107] in Israeli-Palestine area. Opa! Dehr (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Further update

I filed this report previously which you correctly identified as needing a thorough and patient look. The pattern of undue POV pushing is persisting and the editor in question has made further edits of this nature. Editor's modus operandi is unilateral deletion of unfavourable material followed by unnecessary demands on Talk page without reference to Wiki policy. See previous report where no discussion was broached multiple times. [108] Removed Islamic radicalisation content [109] Removes term French Muslim used by many sources [110] Removed Islamic radicalisation content
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if AnkhMorpork discussed more often. For example, on April 1, the user repeatedly reverted my edits in the lead, but did not respond to me even once on Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Lead, where I explained my edits/expressed concerns about the user's edits 3 times (the user finally responded to me April 2).

I also think we need a third party commenting on these issues. (You can find my specific responses to AnkhMorpork's specific objections on the article's talk page).VR _talk 21:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of people working on that article. You could open a WP:Request for comment on the talk page if you want to get consensus on a specific question. Admins will not make rulings on content matters; that is up to the editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I just want to know something. Would the above message posted by AnkhMorpork be considered a non-neutral description of the content dispute? If so, would be considered an example of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning? I want to also contact users who have recently edited the article for comments, so I'm just wondering how to (or how not to) describe the dispute. Thanks,VR _talk 21:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Can anything be done to make the RfC more clear? What exactly are people supposed to agree or disagree with? They can't really write 'Support' or 'Oppose' when there are so many questions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there are a lot of questions.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but the questions seem clear. E.g "Is it or is it not UNDUE to mention that Merah was a Muslim, Salafist and Islamic in the same paragraph?" Users can answer to this by either agreeing with the current lead, or suggesting ways of improving it.

How would you improve the questions?VR _talk 22:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could draft up an a new version of the paragraph in question. Make a new section for it on the talk page. Ask people to comment on it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please can you help draft the RFC question and finally rid yourself of us squabbling on your Talk page. I'm dissatisfied with current RFC question which is misleading, and would really appreciate experienced involvement. Please.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done.VR _talk 23:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Takis Fotopoulos entry

I am in the unfortunate position to inform you that, following what went on regarding the 3RR thing with User:Nikosgreencookie on the Takis Fotopoulos page, I have come under an ad hominem attack by a rather vocal (please see the talk page on the Takis Fotopoulos article) supporter of Mr. Fotopoulos and his Inclusive Democracy movement, User:John Sargis. Seeing that other people (such as User:Nihilo 01 - see his talk page) have come under attack by supporters of Mr. Fotopoulos and the Inclusive Democracy movement, I am being led to believe that there is a behavioural pattern that might constitute various forms of abuse (such as WP:OWN and even harassment of other users). Could you please offer some assistance? Furthermore, I would be grateful if you could point me to Wikipedia administrators or prominent editors that are fluent in both Greek and English, so that they can offer you some reliable information (as I might even be partial or I may misunderstand what I have read) on certain positions of Mr. Fotopoulos and his supporters that are only available in Greek (and are therefore flatly denied by his supporters here on Wikipedia - the language barrier seems to be put to rather good use). Thank you in advance and I hope this issue will be resolved soon. SentientContrarian (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Try making a report at WP:COIN. That is a good place to get advice in cases where people connected with an organization might be editing its article. If you can post links to the Greek-language material, some of us may be able to figure out what they are saying. The person you are complaining about is John sargis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Be sure to spell his name correctly if you are asking for assistance. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SentientContrarian (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have also notified User:Esparcadia, who is fluent in both English and Greek. I suppose this user can provide testimony on the Inclusive Democracy movement's and its leader's (Takis Fotopoulos) Greek-only announcements and their actions on the Greek-speaking internet. It's a pity that these announcements are so incredibly long and that there are so many of them, thus making their translation a very tedious task. You might also find this announcement, which is basically an attack on Wikipedia that does not let them treat the articles on Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos as mirrors of the articles on their own websites, quite interesting and revealing of the way they believe things should be done. If you could be in touch with User:Esparcadia and discuss their findings, I think it would be extremely helpful, not only regarding my own case, but also to protect other users from abuse by Inclusive Democracy members and supporters, and to prevent and discourage further behaviour from organisations that might feel like repeating the Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. SentientContrarian (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you arrived on Wikipedia on March 20 you have paid special attention to the Takis Fotopoulos article or its talk age (You've made 13 out of your 51 edits there). If you came here with the intention of making some reform in this article as well as Inclusive Democracy, it might be better to declare openly what you have in mind, and if you've had a personal connection to those topics in the past. It hardly works to claim that real-life supporters are editing the article if you also have a real-life connection to the topic that you don't declare. Your user page speaks of articles edited by a fan club, and this hints that you see yourself as here on a mission. The link you supplied above is from 2006, a date so far in the past that it does not suggest any imminent threat to the neutrality of our articles. It would also help if you could state whether you have used any previous accounts on Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A previous dispute about Inclusive Democracy is described at User:JWSchmidt/Talk from 2006 first half#On Inclusive Democracy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at and I can't blame you. I think I got a bit carried away; with the benefit of hindsight, I think I should perhaps handled the whole issue in a different manner. As far as having had previous accounts goes, no, this is my first account here. And also, I have no connection to any particular movement of the Libertarian Socialist family; what led me was pure curiosity, as these movements were first mentioned in an offline discussion I had with some friends of mine; they suggested that I do some research and see if I find something that I can relate to. I hoped that by adding that tag I could get other people, more knowledgeable than me, to help improve that article. I never thought it would lead to an edit war and I am honestly sorry for becoming part of a problem. SentientContrarian (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against interested people making the Takis Fotopoulos article better. The fuss about primary sources may not have been a good beginning, but other improvements can surely be proposed on the talk page. From a quick look, the article does not look bad. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Boron

You just sprot'd Boron. I want to be clear that what's been going on there is evidently quacking in the vein of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab/Archive. While Materialscientist has come at it with slightly soiled hands, there is clearly an attempt by involved parties to refspam their own research, and it appears he was trying to stop that. As it stands, the page includes the latest push of user:Aoganov's work. Would you care to unwind that insertion, or is there a discussion needed somewhere?LeadSongDog come howl! 19:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If you believe you have consensus, you can unwind the last change by User:Aoganov yourself. Since Aoganov doesn't exactly have a wonderful reputation on that article, I doubt that it would be controversial. If you are sure that the IP is really Aoganov, you may be able to rely on the fact that Aoganov is banned from the topic of boron. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to jump on that myself, given your "edit warring" edit comment. Even if it isn't Aoganov, the effect is to do what he would have. I don't see sock vs meat as a really useful distinction, particularly when there's a documented track record of globe-hopping IPediting. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 20:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dheyward case

There was nothing frivolous about that report. He compared me to Jeffrey Dahmer for fuck's sake.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

why some user Materialscientist deletes references?

I have added references to some articles that I found very useful, but user Materialscientist deleted them without explaining his reasons. If I find these references useful, many other people will find them useful too. For example, I referenced the recent special issue on boron with the below list of papers:

The high-pressure phase of boron, γ-B28: Disputes and conclusions of 5 years after discovery A. R. Oganov, V. L. Solozhenko, C. Gatti, O. O. Kurakevych and Y. Le Godec 380-387

On the nature of chemical bonding in γ-boron P. Macchi 388-393

Comparative review of theoretical and experimental equations of state of orthorhombic boron γ-B28 Y. Le Godec 394-400

Spectral analysis of the electronic structure of γ-B28 P. Rulis, L. Wang, B. Walker and W. -Y. Ching 401-408

Large shear strength enhancement of gamma-boron by normal compression X. -F. Zhou, Y. Tian and H. -T. Wang 409-420

Mechanical properties and hardness of boron and boron-rich solids S. Veprek, R. F. Zhang and A. S. Argon 421-428

Experimental study and critical review of structural, thermodynamic and mechanical properties of superhard refractory boron suboxide B6O O. O. Kurakevych and V. L. Solozhenko

If people will find these references useful, why Materialscientist deletes them? Why not explain his reasons? I want to complain to you about that or ask advice. If people like me cannot add useful information in the Wikipedia, why is it called open Encyclopedia? Why I add and someone delete without reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I please ask you stop the vandalism of my editings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See #Boron for an earlier discussion. We are not an 'open encyclopedia' in the sense that anything goes. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive194#Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov. If you continue to remove posts by other editors from Talk:Boron the talk page may be semiprotected to prevent this. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your reasonings. I see some unhealthy history of the page of the Boron, and some user Aoganov not allowed to edit this (is this the famous A.R. Oganov whome papers I cited? Even if it's he, why can't I cite good papers of a good scientist? And I cited the papers of many other people. All were deleted by Materialscientist. Please revert). I edited Talk pages because reading how different users and people insult each other makes me sick. Seeing how some users delete what the others write makes me sick too. Please explain why I can't add the useful articles of the 10-15 good scientists listed above. If I find them useful, other people will find them usefull too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you participate in a civil manner at Talk:Boron, you may continue the discussion there. The papers will not be added to the article unless you can persuade others that they are a net improvement. If you personally are connected to any of the research groups you cite it would be helpful if you could mention that. This could be a way of having your contributions viewed with greater respect. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, I do my best. I added the useful references and to my surprise found uncivilized behavior of Materialscientist who gave no reasonings absolutely for deleting these references, excepting his personal hatreds. I will mention to you if I have personal connections. Maybe Materialscientist has personal interest in the story? I see from the Boron talk-pages that he hatreds Prof. Oganov and this harms harmony and objectivity on the Wikipedia. Hatred is a personal disconnection and also should not be taking place, maybe you can find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.205.178.250 (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"low-seniority single-purpose accounts"

Hi, is this a term that you have just now coined, or has it been used before? And if the latter, do you know if there has been any other on-Wikipedia discussion about it? Meowy 23:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is my coinage. It's a way to refer to a class of accounts that are easy for sockmasters to create. There may also be some good-faith editors in that category, but the SPA aspect is easy to check, and the edit count is easy to check. I am planning to suggest a discretionary sanction that might restrict low-seniority single-purpose accounts from editing one or more articles in AA, such as Nagorno-Karabakh. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So really you are using it to define a category of user that could (if actual evidence existed rather than a suspicion) already be sanctioned using existing means. I was thinking a "low-seniority single-purpose account" was more along the lines of a genuine editor who edits almost exclusively in a very narrow range of articles, or even on just one article, and edits problematically because they have either some pov-buzzing bee-in-their-bonnet about the article's subject or they do not know much about the wider issues to realise their edits are problematic. Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles are, as a whole, not a very narrow range of articles - it is very loosely defined and there are probably hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that could, if an administrator was so inclined, fall under its sanctions. Perhaps there should be some general Wikipedia-wide guidance that could apply to all low-seniority single-purpose accounts who edit problematically. Meowy 02:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cases for which Arbcom has authorized discretionary sanctions are cases where admins are allowed to consider measures that are out of the ordinary. Admins are expected to have a good-faith belief that these additional sanctions might do some good. If you check the log of enforcement at WP:DIGWUREN#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions and other cases you will see some very specific restrictions that were adopted for particular articles. We already have WP:SPI to deal with blatant socking, but in the AA articles the debates at AE are full of sock charges which are difficult to confirm one way or the other. A WP:1RR restriction is one of the unusual means that is authorized and used for articles that are often subject to disruption. Arbcom has frequently mentioned the use of 1RR as a remedy, so the Committee is willing to consider article-specific restrictions that are designed to limit abuse. A restriction against 'low-seniority single-purpose accounts' is a new kind of restriction that enforcing admins might, in the future, be asked to consider as a discretionary sanction. Since it would be applied uniformly to all parties it would not be a partisan remedy. Whether it's a good idea is something that would need wider discussion. I have not yet officially proposed this at AE, though I've mentioned it at User talk:T. Canens#Next steps for WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And what of the issue I brought to your attention?[111]. You are going to restrict "low edit" editors from Nagorno Karabakh, yet anon IPs can, and still, canvass for and cause disruptive editing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles!?? IF if ANY editors are to be restricted, then anon IPs should not be allowed to canvass for or edit in any Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear. You must be referring to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 25#Clarification. As I mentioned then, this issue needs to be written up with a full complement of diffs. If you believe it's serious enough to justify widespread semiprotection, it is necessary to persuade other admins that it's a real issue. I also suggested that some enforcement at Kars, or some warning about changing alternate-language names might be considered. I hope you have some time to make a more specific proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)