User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Ezra Nawi concerns

Heyo EdJohnston,
I've noticed that you've reverted and protected Ezra Nawi. I was surprised by the revert as there were a number of linked sources so I looked into the matter and found that User:RolandR has filed an edit-war post claiming "[an] editor has repeatedly added an unsourced allegation of a conviction for a sexual offence to this BLP. S/he relies on an article in Hebrew, which s/he apparently does not understand, but I do. The article does not make this allegation, nor any similar claim."[1] To review the matter, I saw two sources used which stated:
[a] Ezra Yizhak Nawi, who was convicted of having sex with an underage Palestinian youth in 1992. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0730/1224301621244.html
[b] Translation: Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor
-- Original: נאווי, שהורשע בעבר במעשה סדום בקטין http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1110480.html
-- Google auto-translate: link
These are the sources I see in the version you reverted -- diff -- but I assume RolandR referred to something else. If not, this is a very serious matter.
Let me know, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC) better+link, 19:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Talk:Ezra Nawi. Since people seem to consider the protection an important issue, I am surprised that nobody has yet opened a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. The details of Nawi's original conviction appear to be still in dispute (How old was the underage person? What court made the decision?). The Irish newspapers seem to be working on getting the facts straight, and perhaps they will sort it out soon. If you think the matter is now clear, you are welcome to try persuading the other editors on the talk page. I do not think we should accept the results of the Google translator in a BLP case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, RolandR repeatedly removed 3 reliable sources. The case details are not pertinent to the question of edit summaries -- "does not make this allegation, nor any similar claim" -- about one of the 3 reliable sources which were being wrongfully removed.

p.s. I used Google only to show that my own translation (native Israeli) was correct. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Ezra Nawi#New source where I have suggested that editors propose some new wording for the article, based on the more complete story that has now been reported by the Irish Independent. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Veiled accusations of being a Racist

User:Corlumeh reverted my latest additions to the article devsirme, labeling said edits as racism and islamophobic[2]. I am tired of personal attacks and the accompanying harassment on Wikipedia. Apparently this "user" also has his own wikipedia article, which I thought odd, since it is unreferenced and does not appear to pass notability. This has now been joined by an anon IP from Istanbul, Turkey using the same derogatory wording[3]. So I am leaving the article devsirme, since tag teaming is now the style for editing on Wikipedia. Such personal attacks and harassment is the only way for such "individuals" to push the POV of their respective government and until such time as someone in Wikipedia puts a stop to it, such articles will be the purview of lobbyists. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1RR

I would want to know if my edits are violating the 1RR. I am little bit confussed as there have been too much changes and I have certainly edited more than 1 time today at Planned Parenthood, but I have been careful not to revert any one. But I do not understand if my edits could constitute a violation, so I want to know if so and why. Each of my differents edits that I have published today have certainly been entirely reverted more than time today, that for sure, but I have never republished them to respect the 1RR. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read carefully WP:Edit warring which explains how a revert is defined. The fact that each revert may concern different material does not excuse you from literally following the WP:1RR restriction at Planned Parenthood. If you want to participate in editing contentious articles, you are expected to know and understand the edit warring policy. This warning may be the only one you receive. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was reading the rule. It means that one brokes the rule if undo another user's work more than 1 time in 24 hours. But actually I have not undone anyone's work more than 1 time. Indeed I partially deleted some sentences published by one user and later on I have deleted some sentences published by another user. My other edits are not deletions at all, I have complemented or expanded things not deleted nothing and I have added tags of verification failed or citation needed. But if you can remark where I have broken the rule it will be useful to avoid further mistakes?. At any rate I think I will not edit any more during the next hours- -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding is not correct. You will be held to the correct definition of the rule, not the interpretation you have given above. Still, if you decide not to edit the article for 24 hours it would be a sensible decision. EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am also aware of the rule and also a little surprised by the warning, but whatever. I'm just not gonna revert on that page for the next 24 hours and hope that everyone stays happy. Thanks for the warning, immediate sanctions would have been confusing. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your response is appreciated. EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you suggest this ladie to stay away from my talk page. I do not have to keep more patience with her, after she called my edits to be "idiotic", so I find her comments in my talk page just provokative. Your warning about 1RR is enough. By now, as I promised I am not reverting no one at that article. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese has only commented on your talk page ONE time, and her comment seems like it could be useful, even though she disagrees with you. If you aren't able to tolerate much disagreement, then working on abortion articles may not be very satisfying for you. (Abortion is one of the most hotly disputed areas on Wikipedia). Admins cannot prevent people from disagreeing with you. You are welcome to request Roscelese to not post on your talk, but such requests are limited due to Wikipedia policy. E.g. sometimes people are required to notify you of things. She should not use the word 'idiotic' though I don't perceive that it's directed at you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Although I somewhat doubt you missed it, I felt that in fairness I should bring it to your attention that I also violated 1RR in connection with this dispute by making two substantive undo's (or maybe 3 .. though one the 4 edits I made was merely undoing an intermediate minor bot edit that was preventing an undo, and the final edit, though it was an undo, only removed a tag). I acknowledge that I did this in part because my intuition was that "the right way" of doing things may have involved, e.g., lengthy noticeboard discussions or other time-consuming observation of protocol, and in my frustration I could not muster the patience to do that. FWIW. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how welcome my opinion is in this issue but I believe this applies to the above : "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." from WP:3RR Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, if you are concerned you might have broken 1RR or 3RR, consider running http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php on your own edits. In recent times, I have the impression that editors at Planned Parenthood have not been watching themselves very carefully to stay within the 1RR rule. I hope that they will be more attentive in the future, and will use talk discussion or WP:Request for comment to agree on compromise versions rather than simply reverting. ClaudioSantos was warned of the 1RR and then went right on reverting. It was hard to overlook that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the user above, ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) is appealing his 1-week block for edit warring at Planned Parenthood. He is claiming that of the four cited reverts in a 24-hour period, two were self-reverts. Since he has only reverted others twice, I wanted to bring it to your attention so you could re-assess your block duration - one week appears to be excessive compared to other blocks for this sanction, but he does also have a history, and you may be more familiar with the case than I am. ST47 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply to Claudio's discussion of the reverts at his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ezra Nawi

Ed. I just realized I may have broken an ARPBIA rule. I removed a cat which semed totally inappropriate giving circumstances recently, and then reverted when it was restored. I didn't think of the removal (seemingly of a CAT invented for the occasion, since it only had Nawi there) as a revert, until after I reverted, I was rereverted and twigged that I might have inadvertently lapsed into 2RR. No excuses. I thought in anycase while editing that we were under strong instructions to have this sort of thing ironed out on the talk page before rushing to stamp sex offender stuff all around. Ignorance is no defence. Whatever call you make's fine by me. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Since protection lapsed on August 6 you've made a serious effort to improve the referencing. The sex offender category you removed might have been taken out by an admin under BLP, if their attention had been drawn to it. If anyone wants to report you in spite of that record, I'm sure they will. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rules are rules. So in lieu, I'll self-suspend myself for a month, just in case. I'll put a notice to that effect on my page. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk · contribs), it seems peculiar that Nishidani (talk · contribs) should wash his hands of the article so soon after making such extensive edits to it. I don't know how much of the pseudo-BLP writing that's at Ezra Nawi now is his necessarily, but he needs to come back and address the problems that have surfaced since he made his edits. The repeated refs to David Shulman, for example, border on spam; there are refs to exceedingly problematic news sources for a BLP like wn.com and ukgaynews.org.uk; links to blogs and advocacy sites; and there was a link to an advocacy YouTube video that I removed yesterday.—Biosketch (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion 1RR

Hi EdJohnston, as someone who has violated 1RR accidentally a few times, I think it would be good if we could add a more prominent message above the editing box telling people to be aware of the definition of a revert. I thought they were defined as just straight undo edits; it took a few blocks for me to figure out that they count as anything that reverts any part of a recent edit. It's very easy to violate 1RR on accident on a technicality - at least it was for me! Thanks, NYyankees51 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See what you think of {{Sanctions-abortion}}. I have added it to the talk page. The 1RR restriction works reasonably well on the WP:ARBPIA articles, and most of the regular editors seem to be aware of it by now. {{ARBPIA}} is an enormous template, and we should not need anything that big for the abortion articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request at Talk:Iyengar

(Original section header: Some User-Ip has requested to edit the protected Iyengar page, in Talk:Iyengar . It is a disputed page with no consensus. I believe the request should be rejected.)

Hello Ed. I hope you remember some incidents in the iyengar page. A protection request in Talk:Iyengar exists for a long time, with no reponse from any amdinistrator. However, i feel the request should be denied, because it is a disputed page, and there is no consensus to support the edit request. It is from a one "User Ip 65.219.4.7", who has already received multiple warnings in the past, for inappropriate edits. Also, the reason given by the User-ip in the talk page violates Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in every way. The user has made egregious attacks on - "other living personalities and other religions in that message". I'm mentioning some of the statements given(for the edit request) by the User-ip in that talk page, below:

1. The user ip had mentioned - "it is a shame to mention kamal haasan, as he is an atheist with anti-brahmin sentiments". Here the user ip thinks of this website as a pro-iyengar forum, and does not understand wiki' npov policies. The user had also attacked the celibrity(kamal haasan), and has defamed another religion(atheism). Also the "anti-brahmin sentiments" claim was dubious.
2. The user Ip speaks of "main stream iyengar views" as authentic. However here in wiki', especially w.r.t challenged data, neutral party views(from reliable sources/non-iyengar sources in this case) are those which matter.

3. The user ip had also communally offended authors/editors by saying "i suppose the author is a vadama, hence he had the agenda". Again he says "random sources cited are not trusted", thereby not complying with wiki' policies.

4. Finally, he refers to some sources as "not reliable". But they are the most "relied upon sources", as any indian wikipedian would say. "Castes and tribes in southern india - by edgar thurston" , and book sources which display genetic test results are highly authentic. But the user ip had just termed it "unreliable" as he was too uncomfortable with the facts. Check his contribs please(a long history of inappropriate edits by the user ip).

5. The User-Ip mentions of "random sources", actually they are not random sources. I can explain it. But it would be too big an explanation, and only an expert in the subject could probably understand it. For example: The user ip said that "Ref [35] and [37] talk about people in Andhra that converted to thenkalai. They do not even 0.5% iyengars." Actually the refs say that non brahmins were brought into thenkalai fold. Thenkalai is an iyengar subsect and the name is not used anywhere outside "iyengar". The User-Ip is simply trying to dodge and brainwash some senior editors who dont have knowledge about the article.

6. Except the user's mentioning about the honorific suffix sri, almost all of the reason for request is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I hereby request to reject the "edit protected page" request made that user-ip, as it is a highly disputed page, and there is no consensus to support his request. The user-ip has often made vandalising edits in the past, and has given some egregious explanation for the request which highly violates wp talkpage guidelines. Thank You. Please do reply here. Hari7478 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem likely to me that any action will be taken on that edit request: it is too vague. Requests must specify exactly what is to be changed and they usually need consensus on the talk page. Other admins check for these requests constantly and I'm sure someone will handle it appropriately. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment to find consensus on the disputed items. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

your comment on my page

Thank you for your gentle warning about edit warring. I think I inadvertently transgressed these guidelines by thinking in terms of "days" instead of 24 hour periods. Wikipedia runs on American time and I run on Australian time. One edit in the evening here, followed by another around lunchtime on the following day, but only 12-15 hours later, would still be in the same "day" in USA. So thanks to your kind help, I will now think in terms of 24 hour periods rather than days. Floccinauci (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

User:208.127.239.5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Given the user's familiarity with WP policies and acronymns, would a Check-user be appropriate to detemine if this is a previously blocked/banned user? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser would probably decline since there is not much behavioral data. If you think it's a specific person you could open an SPI. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't think I've ever interacted with the user before. - BilCat (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

At what point might it ever occur to anyone that the user's "familiarity with WP policies and acronyms" is because the user is capable of reading them? Or because the user took the time to make intelligent and policy-defensible edits based on a "familiarity with WP policies and acronyms" before proceeding? Apparently never. Pretty sad admin work there, Ed. 208.127.239.5 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither are mutually exclusive. But if you are a blocked/banned user, you have no right to edit here, and that's also policy. - BilCat (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please realize that I'm not accusing you of being an indefinitely blocked or banned user. I'm simply asking an admin if a Checkuser would be appropriate now. He said it's not, and that's fine with me. Also realize that banned/blocked users who continue to edit on WP rarely if ever admit it, so we have to investigate them at some point. - BilCat (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you're not accusing me, you're just asking for an inquiry? Sort of like, there's no proof that anyone died, but let's charge you with murder anyway, because you just never know? Based solely on, as you concede, the mere fact that I have familiarized myself with some WP policies & procedures? I see. Well, in that light, if we're going to be fair, then shouldn't we also consider the source of the request? 208.127.239.5 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I'm disengaging from interaction with the user at this point, aside from any ANI or such filings that may be made, especially on the issue of hounding. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AE

Please see my last comment in the AE thread. You yourself included an exception for AE when you extended Ferahgo’s and my topic bans in December.

Could you please clarify whether I’m understanding your comment in that diff correctly? (I can’t understand what else your statement “The following is advice, and it is not compulsory” could have meant.) Mathsci is already telling ArbCom that according to you I’m violating my topic ban, [4] so it’s important that you clarify this as soon as possible. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I have one other request: would you mind also mentioning this in the request for clarification, where Mathsci said that according to you I’m violating my topic ban? Otherwise, I’m not sure the arbitrators are going to see your new comment in the AE thread where you said that you don’t think I’m violating it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

RogerThatOne72

This user is still adding stacks of content promoting Yogi Bhajan to the kundalini page.[5] I've removed it again but I have little doubt he will soon be back. I'm thinking of taking it to AN/I if he turns up again - I can't block him myself since I have edited the page. Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Roger's last edit was in June. My suggestion would be to open a new section on the article talk page in which you link to all the past discussions of the Yogi Bhajan disputes. This might serve as an introduction to the problem for anyone who wants to look into the matter. If that were done, you could either open an RfC or make a post at WP:NPOVN as needed. You could also leave a warning for the new editor User:Sparkadelic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure such actions will help much. NPOVN doesn't have teeth and RFC's often prove ineffective. I'm inclined to simply take the matter to AN or AN/I to see if I can get some quick action. I'm really tired of seeing Wikipedia being misused as a vehicle for promotion of causes, it's doing enormous harm to the project's credibility and it's something we should have no tolerance for. But I'll keep in mind your suggestion to make a list of prior disputes on this topic, it should be helpful in making a case. Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

3 years and 7 months... go figure.

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you have a word

Hi EdJohnston, could you have a word with this editor on a matter which you recently addressed. Having made my position very clear as to their posting on my User talk page, which was causing me exasperation from interacting with the editor and resulting in the request for Arb enforcement. Having made the request not once, but twice, they continue to post in a condescending manner and despite removing their posts, they continue to post, and revert me when I remove them. This has happened despite clear edit summaries, all to no effect describing my edit as vandalism then saying they did not mean to. Making a baseless accusation of wiki hounding is of little interest to me, but could you just ask them to stop posting on my talk page. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism edit was an accident that occurred due to hitting the wrong button on Twinkle; hence why I reverted it straight away. Why would I do that on purpose? As for all this "condescending" business, I fail to see how asking for an explanation in the nicest and most mature way I possibly could is in any way condescending. If you trawl my contributions and revert constructive edits without so much as an edit summary, I'm going to ask you why. JonChapple^Talk 19:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

if you look at the edit history of José Carlos Fernández Vázquez, you will find several IPs from an English-based anon "user" whom i suspect is on my case for nearly two years now, after i blocked some IPs/protected some pages due to disruptive editing.

As you can clearly see from this edit (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fern%C3%A1ndez_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=prev&oldid=445143881), this is both vandalism and a personal attack (well on my personal work at WP), this guy even went the extra mile as to remove the AEK ATHENS F.C. PLAYERS category even though it is that of the club where he plays NOW! He also removed the category SPANISH EXPATRIATE FOOTBALLERS (meaning a footballers which is playing outside his country, he's a Spaniard playing in Greece), he's trying to get on my nerve and he's succeeding. Plus, he has a vast array of IPs.

Please have a look to some of the messages i sent him explaining what he was adding to the article was WRONG (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.163.52.66 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.163.205.60). Of course, if he is who i think he is (not an AEK football fan, but a vandal who's after me trying me to lose it - and succeeding!), this means nothing.

Appreciate everything you can provide in help/assistance, regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there are some good contributions from this IP range, so a rangeblock would be hard to justify. Please list all the IPs that you believe have been causing trouble. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• As i mentioned before, due to his vast array of IPs, i expected something in the order of a page protection. However, am at a loss: with my first diff, where the guy is CLEARLY seen removing stuff that is correct in categories (and he did it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fern%C3%A1ndez_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=next&oldid=437919776 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fern%C3%A1ndez_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=440477775&oldid=440418181 as well!), i thought it was crystal clear he was trying to annoy me, but OK. Sorry Ed, i know you seem quite confused as you are not very adept in soccer stuff (correct me if i'm wrong), but it's vandalism (if i removed U.S. PRESIDENTS category in Barack Obama three times would it be good faith?)!

Also, as you ask, here are ALL the English IPs in José Carlos' article: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.44.152), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.166.188.25), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.205.60), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.53.152), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.52.66) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.163.206.80). Some "good contributions"?? Most edits with these IPs are in the article i bring to your attention, undoing my work! Again, keep in mind: whether it's a genuine AEK fan, or the English punk that's been on my case for TWO (two!) years, they are removing valid information (categories, stats in infobox inflated) and writing in POV/WEASEL manner (if you take a quick glance at this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fern%C3%A1ndez_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=445144583&oldid=445144482 - just the AEK ATHENS part, you'll see it's filled with unreferenced - and FALSE, trust me! - information.

If you can't or won't do anything, never mind, i'll be ready for the VANDAL (what he is nothing less nothing more, i have tried to approach him politely, he says - without talking - "up yours") when (not if, WHEN) he returns. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected José Carlos Fernández Vázquez per your slightly more clear explanation. There is too much good faith activity in the 86.163.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) range to allow a block of the entire range. This is the smallest range that would cover all of his IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Help! Part 2

Thanks for the above ED!

Another serious matter: after extensive talkpage discussions, the Quique Sánchez Flores article was changed to Quique Flores, as the person is known more as the latter in the English media and football circles. A Colombian anon user (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:190.84.23.35), kept reverting us (even calling people vandals! see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores&diff=435871016&oldid=435866861) and now (am 99,9999999% sure it's him) changed it again. Ah, and he did not participate in the discussion, other than saying "it's his name" (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores).

Could you please duly change it back? This lack of respect for other people's work as got to stop. I also would like to know (even if you don't change title of article) if it's possible to see if the user i mention above and the account that did this, User:Xxxx693, are the same person. Thanks, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• As you see, per this message i have just received (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=cur), the page being re-moved is backedup, not me just throwing a wiki-tantrum. I've also filed a report here. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for the mistake. Was going to fix both situations, but someone already beat me to it... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

*Bonking myself in the head*

I should have asked you before doing so, so slap me with a trout or hammerhead shark or whatever, but I unblocked Rainbowwrasse. They pledged in an unblock appeal to not only stop edit-warring, but to immediately engage in a discussion to resolve the conflict. My unblock was accompanied by a strong warning not to revert any further, with an explanation why we don't allow any to engage in edit wars. I'll watch their user talk page to see that they don't get up to any further shenanigans. But again, I should have asked you first, so I apologize. -- Atama頭 18:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for explaining. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for engaging in edit warring, and also for not making it clear in my response that I will adhere to Wikipedia policies. I do realize that the block was justified, no matter what my reasons for repeated reversion were. It will not happen again. I was frustrated at the time and should have known better. As you know, I felt that my edits were simply being dismissed with no explanation, and that no real discussion was taking place. The discussion has since become more civil and productive. Again, sorry for the trouble. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard

I did the last time, and I was blocked anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill clinton history

Hi, you recently blocked Bill clinton history for 31 hours as a consequence of edit warring. He has come straight back and started again - removing validly cited content from Jaffrelot, inserting copyvios, reinserting material which they had previously added & which had been removed because the sources simply do not support the statements etc. What can I do about this? They have even told me not to post stuff on their talk page. diff of some recent edits. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant to add ... I am sorry for loading you with a couple of rather cryptic reports at WP:AN3 over the last couple of days. Your summaries said things one heck of a lot better than my original reports did. I intend to learn by your example (but really would rather not have to file the things in the first instance!). - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Gold standard

I see you have semi-protected Gold standard for 3 months. I'm not sure it is the best thing for the article to semi-protect it for so long. A lot of good contributions come to that article from unregistered users, and the recent edit warring by an IP-user is the first of those in quite a long time. I think it would be better if we just start with a week long semi-protection, and then see how things are going. A lot of newbies quite quickly see that edit-warring doesn't get you anything.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I reduced the semi-protection to one week. Let's see how it goes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin‎

Ta William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Letting you know about this Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being the one posting this, I was disturbed in real life by my family. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See diff.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill Clinton History

Sir,i reverted only irrlevent statement from the section.section was on origin of Yadav But the statement had nothing about origin.the origional contributer did not revert my edit on this particular topic.moreover the statement had incomplete detail of yadav castes.so i edited another statement with well cited information.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, I did not revert because it would just sustain the warring. That does not mean that I agree with your removal or that it was correct. Your own sources for a completely different statement are (a) old, (b) in many cases only available in snippet view, and (c) often full of words such as "probably", "could be" and "claim". Despite the recent WP:DRN thread you are still showing a tendency not to appreciate what constitutes a reliable source and which ones should be selected in the event that there are several available.

If you felt that it was in the wrong section then the correct thing to do is to move it to a more appropriate section, not delete the thing. I have a gut feeling that you are a Yadav yourself and it is getting in the way of your ability to contribute neutrally. Obviously, I do not expect you to confirm or deny this but the signs are that there is some sort of vested interest on your part. It might be worth you reading about conflicts of interest, just for some useful background information.

EdJohnston, I apologise for commenting here. It would have been better placed on Bill's own talk page had their response to your enquiry not been posted here. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now had to issue another warning for edit warring, together with yet another explanation of why the article cannot mention the points which BCH desires to include. BCH reverted despite a similar explanation on the article talk page, to which BCH even responded. It is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, you might open a WP:Request for comment about the connection between the Yadavs and Yadava. This could be advertised in the usual ways and it might serve to bring in more editors. At this point you should be looking for a consensus to back up your position. I don't know if you feel that this point has already been discussed and adequately resolved at Talk:Yadav. If so you could make a post there summarizing those discussions. If admins see this is as just a two-person dispute between you and Bch, it may be hard to get them to intervene. If you can frame the issue properly, WP:RS/N might help as well. I see there is previous mention of Yadav at RSN on 12 August but on a different issue. It is possible that the Yadav/Yadava issue is too confusing for RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is BCH vs at least three others (myself, MatthewVanitas, Qwyrxian). BCH has thrown tens of citations at the article and its talk page without once providing the link. OTOH, there is clear evidence of dubiety even in the best of the sources they have provided & there are also sources which deny it (one of which is Jaffrelot & the point is specifically made in the article). This has been gone through time and again with BCH, and not just by me. It is an "I don't like it" situation. BCH has been getting away with it for too long now. This is the second suggestion for an RFC of a caste article issue that I have had today, both of which look likely to be a necessary evil. If people just followed the policies and guidelines etc then the RFCs would simply not be required. I think that the issue here is RFCU more than RFC about the content, especially since BCH always avoids the point (they ignore requests for a specific cite of the Yadav/Yadava connection, for example, and of course have ignored your request to show anyone else who agrees with them). I am fed up of people running rings round the "system" but will have a think. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the above was a little intemperate. It says what I feel but omitted the most important bit: thanks for the input. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:History of Morocco

hi

i answered about it here: [6]

Dzlinker (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cockaboose Railroad

In 1990, cabooses renovated in Gamecock colors and decor became part of the already famous South Carolina tailgate scene. They sit on a dormant railroad track just yards from Williams-Brice Stadium and have taken on a life of their own, in terms of parties on game days. The Cockaboose Railroad has contributed to Carolina's gameday atmosphere being named "Best in the SEC" twice by SECsports.com.

Above is the text I copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football in the traditions section. Can you add the reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caboose#Preservation_and_reuse_of_cabooses. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famu98ee (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have already added the information at Caboose. You might consider adding a link to http://gamecocksonline.cstv.com/trads/scar-trads.html#Cockaboose%20Railroad as a reference in Caboose. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Do what you volunteered for

ARBPIA says nothing about needing a template to notify an editor. However, it is clear that there should be counseling before action. You have blocked someone without even explaining why. I agree that the block is probably the best course of action but you should at least attempt to offer support before something that is completely negative to an editor's growth. SCptnono (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Conventional ARPIA sanctions need a warning in advance, but Arbcom agrees that 1RR violations do not need any preliminaries. He was even warned explicitly that he had violated 1RR and asked to self-revert, but would do not do so. Article 1RR restrictions work the same across all of Wikipedia. We only require that the person have had a reasonable chance to become aware that article was under a 1RR at the time they crossed it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then there is the duration... is 72 hours for a first block not excessive? Lirika filosofskaya (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if you allowed to do it. It matters if it was right or not. You volunteered to help out the project. It is often considered more beneficial to discuss with an editor than to template and block. Asking someone to self-revert and a generic template is much different than actually breaking down what is going on in the topic area and why their actions are so frowned upon. And four months is not around that long. You do not have to promote a more hospitable editing environment but as an admin you should want to do more than what you did. But if you chose to be defensive instead of considering the criticism then so be it. And I agree that 72 is excessive and counterproductive.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would like you to comment as an interested party. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help...

..with regard to the category issue but how do you suggest I approach editing of Anti-Estonian sentiment and the tagging and AfD that I linked in my last AE statement? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your questions here. I see no reason why you can't vote in an AfD and give your opinion. You are still not able to reply to him directly, or ask him any questions in your AfD comments. In any article, you can't revert his changes, but you can advocate for changes on the talk page, and possibly some other editor will take care of it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just to clarify, if I understand you wording of the closure correctly, in future if I am minding my own business and my changes are reverted out of the blue I should do nothing otherwise I may be subjected to a symmetrical sanction if I report it. Is this what you suggest I do if this happens again? FWIW, the EEML case was about offline co-ordination with editors piling on to sway concensus, and none of that happened in this case which was a legitmate concern brought by an individual. I would have thought application of WP:IBAN#Enforcement by reverting would have provided adequate disincentive without having to flip-flop between doing nothing and blocking. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I considered restoring the category 'Far-left politics' myself, but it would have been awkward to do that when I had no understanding of the rationale for the category. Then I found that no other editors supported it and it wasn't consistent with usage elsewhere. If it had been a simpler revert (with less worry about it being inaccurate) I might have done it as an admin action, but subject to correction by regular editors. You should still be able to ask individual admins to undo reverts by Russavia that seem to violate his ban; they might do it. You could also ask other editors who work on the article in question; they might do it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. As I said in the AE case I wasn't wedded to this particular category, it was a matter of general principle. This probably needs an ammendment to the enforcement provisions of the relevant cases so you guys don't have to be burdened with a judgement call. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing when you are subject to an interaction ban poses some difficulties, but surely it's better than having a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but I've been minding my own business editing in my circle of interest, keeping to my end of the mutual "bargain", and yet my edits get reverted out of the blue... --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you assume that Russavia would have no interest in Estonian topics? EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I have no problem with the close, however, I do have a problem with suggested future sanctions (see my comments on Canens talk page for those). I also have no problem with Tammsalu "interacting" with myself, so long as comments are on content ONLY, with no comments directed at myself as an editor (i.e. accusations, etc, etc). This is the way that Carcaroth suggested things should be as per the link I have provided, and it is the way that I have adjusted my editing on WP since way before then anyway...focus on the content...if this is done there is no reason that "interactions" can't take place in a collegial way. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Ed. I held off commenting on your sanction because I was a bit upset with your decision and didn’t want to say anything rude that I would later regret. In light of the fact that I generally held to the provision of the initial ban and made one error in judgment I was wondering if you would reconsider your 2-month extension or perhaps shorten it to one month. Either way, I’ll obviously respect your decision with no hard feelings. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your topic ban was extended at AE per a thread in which several admins participated. I'm not inclined to change a group decision unless something is different now. In that AE thread, people pointed out you had done practically no Wikipedia editing since your last topic ban was imposed. Is there any chance you could become active in the mean time and start making well-sourced contributions to non-I/P articles? This would help establish your good faith. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay Ed no problem and thanks anyway. I'll make an effort to edit in other areas within the limited free time that I have. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban

How do my edits violate my topic ban? I concentrated on Kahane's political history, and on Olmert's corruption scandals. I did not put in a single piece of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict.--RM (Be my friend) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See mine and Chesdovi's replies on my page.--RM (Be my friend) 23:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

...and another sock attack at WT:NORWAY

Hi EJ, please have a look at the new additions to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav. Ønography (talk · contribs) and Hirzflag (talk · contribs) are constantly asking odd questions about notability of Norwegian individuals. Not very different from Kollibris (talk · contribs) actions a few months back. --Eisfbnore • talk 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would work on this but the latest addition to the SPI report is not in the proper form. It looks like someone just went in and edited the old report instead of filing a new one. (It is missing the usual headings). It will take some time until I can go and straighten this out. Or, you could refile the SPI report yourself if you have the patience :-). EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like things have settled. Thanks for your effort. --Eisfbnore • talk 07:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs

Hello, Ed. On 11 July 2011 you unblocked Wustenfuchs subject to a topic ban from "subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed)" for six months. On 5 August it was pointed out that the editor had edited an article relating to fascism, namely Crusaders (Ustaša). Wustenfuchs defended the editing on the (in my opinion) rather strange grounds that he/she thought "subjects or people related to fascism" meant "articles which have got WikiProject Fascism templates or fascism categories attached to them". The discussions of this are at User talk:Fainites#Ustaše (guerilla), User talk:Wustenfuchs/Archive 3#Your topic ban, andUser talk:EdJohnston/Archive 22#Wustenfuchs. On 23 August I discovered that the editor has recently made several contributions relating to the Spanish civil war, including six edits of Talk:Spanish Civil War/GA1 and at least two talk page posts relating to it. Since the Spanish civil war is quite unambiguously related to fascism, and since Wustenfuchs had already been given warnings about the previous breach of the unblock conditions, I restored the original block. Wustenfuchs has defended his/her edits, on the grounds "But I didn't edit the article. That was deal. I only asked for sourced informations, that is all..." I do not see the fact that the edits were not to an article as relevant at all, as the ban was on any edits related to fascism, not to article edits related to fascism. The fact that the edits were not in themselves objectionable, and were largely concerned with issues of reliable sourcing, might be considered a better defence. My own view is that in the Crusaders (Ustaša) case the editor made unambiguous breaches of the ban and made ridiculous excuses, and that having done that any leeway that might otherwise have been allowed for editing on the periphery of the ban has been forfeited. Consequently I think the reblocking is justified, even though I would not have blocked just for Spanish civil war case had the Ustaše not already happened. However, I thought I would consult you, since you did the unblocking. Do you think that the breaches of the ban are so minor that reblocking is not justified? (One other point: I would not have known that Crusaders (Ustaša) was fascism-related had another editor not pointed it out, as I had never heard of the subject. Wustenfuchs has also edited other articles I know nothing about, and for all I know there may well be more breaches of the ban.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment at User talk:Wustenfuchs. Thanks for informing me. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Message from AceD

I will certainly abide by your ruling with regards to the ATF decision by continuing in discussions on the talk page. I would like to note that I am not employing "socks" and would like that accusation lifted. This is my account, my only account, and I have never presented myself as more than one person. I reactivated an account I had forgotten I had even signed up for over five years ago, based on the advice of numerous people to register. I think further evidence that I am not a sock should be evident as an administrator- under my login name I post from many different locations as IP's. I could easy use that to truly be a "sock", but I don't.

Additionally, I did not utilize more than three reverts in a 24 hour period, or even in a 48 hour period. But I do thank you for your fair decision, and do hope that it does assist in reaching some sort of accord.AceD (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I apparently did not put this in the location I attempted, please move when when you can to where you deem it is appropriate. Forgive me, I truly am still very new to Wikipedia.AceD (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you restrict yourself to editing as User:AceD from now on, you should be OK. To edit a disputed article with more than one account violates WP:SOCK. It would be helpful if you would put a message at the top of user talk page like the one at User talk:VascoAmaral. This would acknowledge your previous use of an IP. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:AceD's defense has a hollow ring to it. He has admitted using multiple anonymous IP addresses and another registered name (AceD), and has engaged in an edit war for some time under these multiple IP addresses, apparently switching to a new address or name (AceD) only after being warned - and never notifying those affected. Further, until very recently as AceD, he has consistently failed to sign his many posts, even when requested multiple times. A very strange pattern for a legitimate editor..... I won't say it's more like a disruptive vandal, but there are similarities - especially when considering the name-calling and other non-Wiki techniques. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"He has admitted using multiple IP addresses"

Um, where? I suggest some lessons in reading comprehension, I stated that as AceD I have utilized multiple IP addresses. Can you only utilize a regular account from one IP address (i.e. only get on wiki at home and not work? Not on your Iphone? etc). Just, wow.

"and another registered name"

This is yet another outright, categorical lie. Please quote where this admission was made. You will not, of course, not only because you cannot but because you enjoy these shell games. To the content though- I have never had another wikipedia account outside of this registered username. Ne-Ver, just to break through your confusion.

I won't clutter up this user's page with anymore of this, suffice to say I could break down each and every one of your claims as the nonsense they quite clearly are but it isn't worth the effort. I sure Ed doesn't appreciate you bringing your anger and fustration over to his user page, I'm sure my page or somewhere else would be a far more appropriate forum.AceD (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The above vitriol being brought to you by an editor who, using more than one IP address, and since at least March, has spent the vast majority of his time on Wikipedia in personal attacks against the undersigned and in reverts of the undersigned's edits. I rest my case.

Computer Guy 2 (talk)

What case? And again, learn to comprehend what you are reading a bit more. I haven't used "more than one IP address". In fact, before I had an account, I made sure to use only one.

And you grossly overstate how much time it takes to respond to someone who literally says nothing substantively, merely attacks another. Nowhere were you mentioned on this page in my response to Ed, yet you absolutely had to come running. You literally haven't spent one hour today when you haven't been complaining or whining about me, be it the 10-15 posts you have made on the 3RR page, the ones here, the now new complaint you lodged at SPI, etc. It's actually flattering.AceD (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AceD if it is truly needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A/E Question

Hi Ed. Is it possible to withdrawal a request on A/E? -asad (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about WP:AE#Chesdovi, why not add a comment to your section, giving your reason why you want to withdraw the complaint. Since others have already commented, we should wait till an admin closes it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Goddessy

Since you have knowledge of previous issues, you should probably check ANI. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That thread is quite entertaining, but I don't think I could add anything useful. In the past the article was a festival of sock puppetry originating from Goddessy's PR department. It seems people are aware of that now. ANI is following its usual good judgment and sober reasoning and has reached a not-too-bad conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No Problem, just a reply

Hi Ed, I've posted a reply to your conclusions at AE and while I may disagree I'm more than happy to go along with them. I have left an example which I hope will support the concerns I have. Thanks again for your comments on the request I filed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing War?

The Editing war is not of my fault.

Page: Save China's Tigers Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nroets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an editing war going on with Nroets and many other members of the Wikipedia committee, Nroets keep editing and removing relevant information, huge chunks of them from the above stated page. Many users have tried to undo his edits, but he refuse to back down and led to editing wars. What is worse is that he is a Pot calling a Kettle black, complaining and asking his rivals to be blocked despite himself being one in wrong.

Nroets removed a fully referenced subsection, only to add 2 or 3 sentences of his own without references. I want to clean up and to just edit that subsection accordingly and has mentioned it in his talk page, but he just removed the entire subsection without valid reasons.

What he does is weird because the whole section and subsection has been there for over 3 years, just waiting for some minor clean up, and updates, however he is removing the whole chunk and adding his own little tales in it. How can the subsection be updated or clean up then? Can the administrators do something about this? He has caused another user to be banned just for trying to protect the page's integrity.

Bengal tiger:

• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]

Save China's Tigers

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]

John Varty

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]

I tried warning him in his talk page, but to no avail.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:China's Tigers

Comments:

NicRoets could be a puppet of User:TigerAlert because what they edit is really similar.

I am just trying to save the page's integrity, to keep things constant and stagnant, and to improve them when neccessary. But NicRoets is removing the whole subsection and prevent other members to update or correct the subsection. Why am i at fault? China's Tiger (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

When there is disagreement, you are expected to reason with the other editors and try to find consensus. If you simply continue to revert, that puts you in the wrong. I do not see any posts by you to the talk pages of any of these articles. Until you have held a talk page discussion, admins and others are unlikely to take you seriously. I notice that User:Nroets has posted at least at Talk:John Varty, though not at the others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replying. However please look at what i stated every time i revert his wrongdoings. I stated the reasons clearly. Yes, i rarely speak in the talk page, however that is because i believe i have given sufficient reasons for reverting his edits when i am doing the revert. To just warn me, and to correct me only seems somewhat bias. Why haven't you talked to him about it -yet? It seems that it is always his rivals who are facing the blocks, and he gets away every time?

China's Tiger (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You believe you are right, however most participants in edit wars sincerely believe they are right. The fact that you give an edit summary when you revert is of hardly any interest. If the dispute is brought to a noticeboard, the fact that you have not participated on the article talk page will be held against you by admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not just me, the previous few users who were up against him thought so too. If he is right, why is he part of so many editing wars? I have know mentioned this in the various talk pages of the articles mentioned. Please do take a look if you are free, and advise me on what to do. Right now i just feel biased against, as though he is always favored by administrators while his rivals are always being blocked or banned. I am losing interest in contributing to wikipedia because of people like him, and biasness like this. That's how i feel sincerely, that's why i am here to ask for advice.

China's Tiger (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not listening to any of my advice, so I don't know why we should continue this conversation. People are being mean to you, therefore you are free to ignore the advice we give about edit wars? EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston,

No offence, but i am heeding your advice already. =) I already mentioned that i am now trying to bring across my points in the talk page on Bengal Tiger and Save China's Tigers but to no avail, he is still reverting my edits. I am already heeding your advice, and already going through the correct channels to get my point across. I am just asking why is it always his adversaries which are subjected to blocks and bans, while he is always free to go? Even though he himself doesn't talk in the Discussion page at all? China's Tiger (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

hello

could you send me the pdf data too. Krisztina Bodrogi, "Turks, Kurds, or a people in their own right?Wikisupporting (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the instructions on setting up your Wikipedia email which I left on your talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza source email

Ed: Would you please email that Zaza article to my wiki email address: <redacted> Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuation War

Can you please explain what exactly am i allowed to do given the sanctions you so kindly posted to my talk page? The edit war started right after block ended and i don't know what can i do about it. The discussion is still ongoing in the talk page but like here [13] he insists of resetting the result box regardless that nothing has been agreed in the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I just made a new 3RR complaint about an IP you recently blocked

FYI, [[14]]. Hope I read the tea leaves right. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Review Requested

Hi Ed, hope you're well. When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, could you review my closure of this AN3 report? User: Debresser, the user who filed the report, has contested my closure on my talk page. Despite numerous attempts to explain my rationale, he has continued to badger me and is now threatening (empty threats more or less, but still threats) me with some sort of community action. As an admin who regularily patrols AN3, I was hoping you could provide an unbiased third opinion on my closure. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing for you to answer; there is no formal review open anywhere. I suggest allowing Debresser to have the last word, and let it go. You've already pointed him to ANI if he wants followup. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice! Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft amendment

Ed, it would be great if we could draft something up, or at least try to do so, so that we can present it to the Committee for their consideration. I suggest a motion to amend both relevant interaction ban remedies to be amended, with the wording presented as such:

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Tammsalu. Both parties are directed that their interactions must concentrate only on content, at the risk of draconian measures being taken to enforce deviation from this directive.

At this stage, I am only willing to discuss the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu, and a number of other editors. My reasons for not wanting to include certain editors at this stage is pretty clear I think, and I am certain you can understand why.

This suggested amendment would allow for what is needed, and also makes it crystal clear to editors that content is the only focus, and I don't believe it is gameable, whilst of course it allows for content to the focus and get back to editing. Which is essentially what WP is all about anyway --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, Ed, please retract User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Trying_to_lift_one_of_the_EEML_interaction_bans immediately. VM is under an interaction ban with myself, and he is not party to any dispute with myself, but has rather used the AE to break the interaction ban with myself. It is unbelievable that you could ask an editor whom I have made clear is only engaging in personal attacks to a discussion, when they are NOT party to anything. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I need to make this very clear. I have been a victim in the past of harrassment by numerous editors, which is why there is an interaction ban. I have made it clear that I am willing to have the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu looked at, and have also made it quite clear that I have no interest in seeking an amendment in relation to two editors who have broken the interaction ban with no good reason (i.e. interjecting themselves into something that has nothing to do with them, and in doing so have only engaged in personal attacks). I am only willing to discuss anything with those editors who have shown a propensity to concentrate only on content, rather than those who have only engaged in outright attacks on myself. Volunteer Marek has also made it quite clear:

Quite honestly, I basically want Russavia to stay the hey away from me

and

STAY AWAY FROM ME PER YOUR INTERACTION BAN, as I have stayed away from you all this time. Then you can have all the good faith in the world.

So why on earth are you now inviting him to be a part of discussions on how to move forward in this area, when he is on record at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia?

If Vecrumba and Volunteer Marek are not removed from any discussion forthwith, please note that I will withdraw myself from any discussions immediately. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. If we need to have a meta-discussion about the future of the bans, and if the bans are interpreted so strictly as to prevent any discussion, then we are stuck in a loop and will not make any progress. (Trapped in our own net). If you are not in support of my initiative, I will drop out and you can go it alone. Here is my proposed revision of your above text:

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Tammsalu. The editors are reminded to use the utmost diplomacy on any articles which they choose to edit in common. If any edit warring occurs, it is understood that some of the topic bans previously imposed or the interaction ban itself might be restored through the discretionary sanctions process. Admins may choose to allow short-term exceptions to any interaction bans still in place under EEML or ARBRB on a case-by-case basis if they consider it helpful for resolving an issue which is open on a noticeboard.

— EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, proposed amendments are okay with me and will endorse it. In my experience Arbcom tend to come up with their own wording anyway, so I wouldn't agonise over the precise wording here, what matters is the intent. Being an admin ArbCom will take your suggestions onboard in drafting a motion if you make a comment at the amendment request. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I am ok with that in the most part. The part about concentrating on content only is part of WP:CIVIL policy, so any comments or insinuations on actual editors is banned by part of that policy. I also only support this motion in regards to myself and Tammsalu. Plz notify of the amendment, and I will comment there. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the part in relation to:

Admins may choose to allow short-term exceptions to any interaction bans still in place under EEML or ARBRB on a case-by-case basis if they consider it helpful for resolving an issue which is open on a noticeboard.

needs to be scrubbed I believe, as it isn't pertinent to the amendment request in question; that being the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu. And as one can see, it hasn't worked at all, but has rather resulted in a barrage of personal attacks against myself by a couple of editors. Other than that, I am in agreeance with the rest. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnston's proposal sounds like a sensible solution, for now. But in general, I think more sanctions, not less, is the way to go. What concerns me is the persistent incivility and battleground behaviour (a good example is this), which never stops, despite all the warnings and previous (now lifted) sanctions. I think comprehensive interaction bans (forbidding commenting on editors but allowing commenting and editing content) and 1RR restrictions for all editors mentioned in the EEML case (including both the EEML members as well as their critics) are what we need. If such an ostensibly draconian sanction is not admin-politically feasible right now, then at least the more heated and most incivil editors should be restricted, pending consensus among admins for a more general solution. Nanobear (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nanobear, as a person who was indefinitely site banned for posting private information about former EEML members, I'm not sure if you have clean hands in regard to your accusations of battleground behaviour. I note that while you appear to contribute very little to Baltic topics, you seem to initiate or appear in almost every AE case about a Baltic topic editor. Must you turn every thread into a drumbeat to sanction your latest target, Vecrumba? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, in order that this isn't held up any longer, post your draft to the amendment requests, and any pertinent comments can be made after the committee themselves have a look at it, and make their first round of comments. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Settlement articles

Hello Ed. There has been a surge in sock-puppetry on settlement articles, all focused on removing the sentence on the legal status of the settlement (see the most recent EvilZionist (talk · contribs)). Dealing with these one at a time is not feasible, as multiple accounts are created each day making the same reverts over and over with different usernames, stepping by the 1RR. There is an explicit consensus for the material, yet it is continually removed. What should be done in this case? I asked at an earlier AE thread if such edits could be treated as vandalism and reverted without regard for the revert restriction. That query went unanswered, so I ask again. Can these removals be treated as vandalism? Or is persistent sockpuppetry allowed to trump that consensus? nableezy - 03:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want an official change in how these reverts are handled, you should file an SPI with some examples, so we know how big the problem is. There seems to be a discussion at Talk:International law and Israeli settlements which is being held in good faith. If we open the gates wide to reverting changes in the lead (by registered accounts), it could reignite some of the previous disputes. Reverting edits by IPs still doesn't count against the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe again

Here is something I think you need to look at [15]. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be handled for now
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have left a note at User talk:Hashem sfarim. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Hello. Yes, I'm aware, and I would not throw that term around so lightly. I said it because it arguably was happening, and I have discernible (and common sense) proof that said user was doing it. He never went on those articles before, and now is, after seeing my recent edit history, after a disagreement in another article (where another editor sees POV in this editor also). It's not a coincidence what happened. He purposely checked my edit history out of animosity or bias, then went into a few articles that I contributed to recently, and then reverted much of what I put, due to the same bias he displayed elsewhere. There was following around going on. Don't assume I said it lightly. I wouldn't do that. LoveMonkey was out of line here in this "Maybe again" stuff. Why assume that I said what I said "lightly"? Why knee-jerkly think I'm incorrect and the other person is totally perfect? Listen carefully, please. This person has been known for POV-pushing and has been reverted a number of times by other editors, on a specific article. This editor should be scrutinized, not me. (Or not only me, if that's the case.) But I appreciate your concern, and I will be careful. I was merely saying that I don't want to be hounded from now on by this editor, simply because of some disagreement or problem on another article (where other editors actually agreed with me on.) Because this editor did not even bother with these other articles until he saw that I contributed to them recently, and right after a dispute on another article. Following someone around, and pushing POV, and changing or removing good-faith and accurate edits, simply because the person "Does Not Like It", and showing clearly established provable POV bias in other articles, where he has been reverted many times by other editors because of it, etc, and then checking on someone's history because of hostility and bias, is against WP policy. The evidence is clearly there. It was not said lightly. And I was saying that I don't wish arguable hounding to continue. I have that right. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I don't perceive a serious complaint here (there are no diffs). Please convince me that you are working in good faith. What I know of you from the admin boards is not positive. LoveMonkey has a track record. It seems that you do have some knowledge that could be of value to Wikipedia. The fact that you are getting into disputes here is worrisome. We could miss out on some good edits from you if you get off the track and wind up leaving because of conflicts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I understand. That's why I say to be careful not to be knee-jerk here, or hastily see things incorrectly, because of some unfortunate bias (that may not even be totally warranted). Trust me. I'm NOT chopped liver. Or someone to be hastily or unfairly viewed as "not positive". On the word (or assumption) of someone like "LoveMonkey." Yes he said "maybe", but even so. (Which also shows that LoveMonkey is checking on me also, because otherwise how would he know? Which obviously I don't appreciate.) I'm a fair and careful editor, of various articles. And I try to clean things, revert obvious vandalism, source unsourced statements, etc. I am very careful and serious on Wikipedia. No one's perfect every second or every syllable. Anyway, as far as "good faith", I've been dialoging with said user just now, in a gentler (yet still firm) tone. But the problem is this: PLEASE believe me when I say that this other user does have unwarranted bias and POV-pushing, as can be corroborated by other editors (more established than I am, and whom you might know and like). Again, I would never say the word "stalk" or "hound" lightly or with zero warrant. I don't do things like that. I just don't appreciate being (obviously) followed around by unfriendly biased editors, who have been (beyond me) proven to POV-push, and who have been reverted for POV bias already by other editors. All of what I'm saying here is easily verifiable and provable. But again, I'm trying to compromise, but this individual (trust me, I don't say it lightly or dishonestly) is not easily reasoned with or compromised with. But I'm trying. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A self-revert yet with more personal attacks

Ed, I am getting tired very quickly of this outright gaming and bullshit that is going on in this area. I am trying to formulate a response to you (on my talk page) about ways to get around this, but it is impossible to do so when Vecrumba self-reverts, but immediately engages in personal attacks on myself at User_talk:Vecrumba#Since_you_were_involved_in_discussion_of_this_in_the_past -- this is getting beyond a joke, and I am now asking that these personal attacks be dealt with immediately. Unlike borderline cases of editing which may or may not breach interaction bans, Vecrumba's outright personal attacks are a breach of his interaction ban in the most egregious way possible, not to mention a core principle, that being WP:CIVIL. It is obvious that Vecrumba has no intention of trying to work things out like adults, but will continue to engage in personal attacks on myself, making it more likely of WWIII breaking out, and this needs to be avoided.

I am also asking that you deal with Volunteer Marek's interjection into the AE discussion in which he is not a part, which is also a breach of his interaction ban on myself. He is not a party to the dispute, so it too is plain interaction ban. And his breach of interaction is also full of personal attacks on myself.

See, WWIII? I am not going to get involved in this any further, apart from what I will try to discuss with you (and any other interested admins) on my talk page. Hopefully in the coming hours. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Though V. may have put too much feeling into his response, it does not appear to be a personal attack. The one listed at WP:AE#Vecrumba really *was* a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, two things.

1st. I consider Russavia's edit, which eliminated a source only because it is critical of Russia, to be harassment of all those editors who are interested in a reputable representation of the Soviet legacy through to Russia's interpretation of said legacy through to current foreign policy regarding the Baltic states. This is not a comment on content, it is a comment on my motivation for making particular edits, accuses me of harrassment, also accuses me in a way of POV editing - if you know the history of "reputable representation" you'll know what I am talking about. Considering that he has made these comments immediately after doing the revert only makes this yet another breach of his interaction ban on me. He could have simply reverted his blatant interaction ban breach, and notified. But instead, we get another rant with personal attacks on myself as an editor, with nothing to be said about the content.

2nd. VM has no valid reason to be present at the AE report; he is not part of any dispute, and he has also engaged in personal attacks on myself. I hope that this will be dealt with as well in an expeditious manner.

Please ask for a second, third, fourth, fifth opinion on this from other admins, and see what they say. FPaS and Jehochman may be of some use; as they are but two admins who I am aware of who were quite knowledgeable on patterns of behaviour and the like with myself and EEML.

Sorry that I, and you, are being placed in this position. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My inclination is to think that V. could need a much longer block for the history of personal attacks. When the AE closes we will find out if that is the result. But such a block wouldn't solve the interaction between you and Tammsalu. One idea is to actually *lift* the interaction ban between you and Tammsalu, with the expectation that both parties would use the utmost diplomacy on articles that are of interest to both of you. If this gets any support, it would need to be approved by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I regret that my observation that an editor showed up (in the midst of another dispute) apparently to remove content indicating criticism of Russia is considered a personal attack and not an objective observation regarding provocation. If the editors who allege I have personally attacked them can produce evidence of any constructive content they have created regarding the Baltics (or the Soviet-Baltic or Russia-Baltic dynamic) I would be more than glad to retract my apparently unfortunate observation. I would support lifting of the interaction bans so we can get back to discussing content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I am now asking that Vecrumba be banned right now, given that he is continuing to engage in personal attacks. His initial personal attack is not grounds for him to make an additional 3 personal attacks against myself, and also engage in personal attacks against TFD and Nanobear. Given that this is problematic behaviour for Vecrumba, I am inclined to ask that Vecrumba receive a 2 month block for the personal attacks against myself, followed by a one-year EE topic ban under the general WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. As Vecrumba has a demonstrated long history of personal attacks against other editors, and because his behaviour doesn't appear to have changed since WP:EEML days and since receiving a 3 week block for extreme personal attacks on myself at an ongoing Arbcom case, a two-month block and a one year topic ban is more than warranted. Then myself and other editors who are not engaging in attacks can hopefully work towards a conciliatory solution.

Additionally Ed, if these personal attacks are not dealt with in a timely manner right now, I will be placing a notice at WP:AN/I for other admins to intervene, because not only are they personal attacks, but it is also WP:HARRASSment, and I have been thru this before with admins doing nothing about it, and I am not going to allow it to occur again. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, your idea of lifting the interaction ban is a good one. While ArbCom would need to approve any permanent lifting, perhaps your discretionary powers would allow a temporary trial? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The interaction bans come from WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB. Most likely this needs a motion by Arbcom. It would make sense to expand the offer to other named parties of the EEML case. If they say yes, their names could be included in a Request for Amendment. I might not support including all of the parties, but Arbcom could make that call. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, I think you should wait patiently for the result of WP:AE#Vecrumba. I suspect that there will be a need for further sanctions against Vecrumba, since he does not show much interest in collaboration on these articles and continues to inject these colorful personal attacks. If you resort to ANI why don't you take your chances there and I'll wash my hands of the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, as you say it is clear that Vecrumba isn't showing a collaborative attitude, and is demonstrating that he is part of a problem, not part of the solution. Engaging in a personal attack does not create grounds for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" as per Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted. Instead of clearly and directly warning Vecrumba that personal attacks are not tolerated, he is being allowed to continue to engage in personal attacks on myself, which is clearly not conducive to creating an atmosphere in which editors who wish to collaborate and to try and work out a solution that will benefit editors within EE who wish to try and move forward within the WP:SPIRIT of why we are supposed to be here. The longer that he is allowed to continue, the worse it is going to be for all of us I fear.

If the AE case being open is the problem, I have no problem with it being closed of, with a one-week block of myself as suggested, whilst we continue to work towards a conciliatory solution, say on my talk page, so that I can still participate in it whilst being blocked. How is that for an interim solution? But I can't allow such blatant harrassment to be continued against myself under such blatant circumstances. I hope you do acknowledge that it is harrassment? --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks also for your intervening and trying to help work out a solution that could benefit many editors within this topic area. It's great to see. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, as we are all looking for a solution, and in light of the comments of FPoS[16], I don't think there is any benefit in this push for a finding of "harrassment" against Vecrumba, who only expressed his perception of the inapproriateness of that particular AfD. Afterall his perception was in part supported by TC and you proposing a block for both sides. The implied offer to accept a one-week block in return for a finding of "harrassment" against Vecrumba isn't necessary. My view is that in light of your constructive suggestion for lifting of the iBan, the support for it by the parties and FPoS' support for such a proposal, that the AE case be closed with no action on both sides (as it was in the previous case) and that an amendment request be brought to ArbCom requesting a suspension of the mutual iBan for all concerned. Let ArbCom decide whether particular individuals should benefit from the suspension or not. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the overuse of "blatant" et al. rather points out who is actually on the attack here. As my arbitration filings are years in-between, I am glad to support a true end to the "harassment," which is to implement an enforcement request ban on all who participated on both sides of the EEML debacle, so, in my case that would mean I can't file a request against anyone who presented evidence against myself (and others, to make it simple) @ EEML, nor can they file a request against me (and others). If you wish an end to hostilities, disarm the combatants. I've been advocating for this for years, perhaps someone will listen, finally. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If other editors initiate conflict, my defending myself or reputably sourced content is not disruption, and I am fully entitled to state my opinion of those who attack me, who question my motives, and who sully my reputation—and do so with a frequency which proves it's really just to get a rise out of me; of course, if I don't respond, they've then succeeded in running me off. So, has WP finally degenerated into a kangaroo court run by demonstrably anti-Baltic editors? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. I am glad to debate Nanobear, Russavia, or any other editor regarding what constitutes content which fairly and accurately represents reputable and reliable sources. That has never been an issue. It is when editors step over the line attempting to control content by means OTHER than intellectual debate that problems start. Being that I have personally debated paid propaganda pushers on other topics—at least they stuck to sources as they were being paid to create content—I'm 100% confident I'm not the problem here. (And for the upteenth time, I am not insinuating my current detractors are paid by anyone in an yway, as they have accused of making that "personal attack" as well in the past.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Russophobia#Latvian_section for an illustrative discussion over representation of a source which involves Russavia, BorisG, and myself. This is how content is discussed in the absence of enforcement requests. Obviously, I disagreed with Russavia's assertion of "...whenever I place anything in an article, it is meticulously sourced, and will be presented in an NPOV way, and will survive the most stringent verification...". That is neither here nor there regarding the conversation here, the point here being that there was no escalation of conflict because no one filed a Arbitration Enforcement request against either of us for interacting inappropriately, no one advocated for either of us to be banned. Obviously there has been some WP:GAME changer which has precipitated recent AE attacks while I, in no manner, have been the initiator of any disruption whatsoever. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And not like this. I am sure this is only poor timing instead of an assault on content about a reputable source which defends Baltic history against blatant myths, many continuing to be fomented by the current Russian administration. Bypass tagging an article with any concerns, go directly to deletion. And I can't say a damn thing because of the so-called interaction ban, Russavia got there first. I suppose I'll be attacked now for conspiracy theories and more personal attacks questioning an editor's motives. That article hadn't been touched in a year and a half, at which point now, in the middle of all this, Russavia nominates directly for deletion without even a mention on article talk. If you want an example of counterproductive disruption and polarizing provocation knowingly conducted under, and exploiting, an interaction ban to control content, it doesn't get any more clear than this. I bear no malice, Russavia and Nanobear are productive editors elsewhere, I have no need to outright ban them for months on end as they appear to advocate for me. Just take away their ability to dredge up conflict to the point that we're back to where we were two years ago. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nor is soliciting prior partisans into the fray a strategy for de-fusing the situation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, please remember, whilst we are talking of having the interaction ban between myself and Tammsalu amended, and closing off the WP:AE request, please don't forget the reason for the AE request in the first place; that being the unnecessary and unwarranted personal attacks upon myself by Vecrumba. And not only that, but the continued personal attacks by the editor against myself. And not only me, but also on other editors. And this is over a long period of time. I am unwilling to allow that side of things drop, given that the editor has lied about the initial personal attack being directed towards another editor; regardless of the actual words clearly showing that it was a personal attack on myself. And the half-truths and complete fabrications that the editor has uttered since then about myself and others, shows that they are relentless.

I do apologise if I have come across as a little bombastic, but unless you have been the victim of serial harrassment, as I have, and still am by the looks of it, you don't know what that does to ones self. And when it is being allowed to continue unabated on your talk page, only makes me think that you are condoning their despicable behaviour and personal attacks. If that is not the case, I will apologise, but as it stands at the moment, it appears that way to me.

So, no, I am unwilling to allow the personal attacks on myself by two editors to go unpunished, as I have not done such a thing to them. Please remember that when closing the AE. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As this relates to the dispute and resolution thereof, I regret to observe you were the one who initiated the disruption, stirring the Baltic/EE/Russia conflict pot in a manner guaranteed to bring reaction. And even if such reaction were indeed a surprise the first time, you subsequently repeated such stirring since you filed your AE against me, per my diff at same. It is only because I despise tit-for-tat pouring of gasoline on fires that I have not filed an AE counter-suit regarding that disruptive conduct. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a complaint

This isn't a complaint, nor a request that you act, but just a concern that there's something I ought to know but don't. I know, of course, that each sysop makes his own decisions for his own reasons in evaluating a listing at EWN, but is there some overarching or generic reason why this one, which I listed, would not have received a response? I acknowledge that just making the complaint appears to have chilled the tag war, is that it? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was too hard. Seems to be a case of long-term warring where neither side behaved perfectly. It would maybe have taken an hour's work to figure it out and be sure the response was fair. (The report listed 22 reverts). I was hoping that some other admin would get to it. If the war continues, resubmit. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and it helps. Much appreciated, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Message from Iluvkolkata

<Barnstar removed; not necessary. Thank you for the gesture, EdJ >

Appreciate the heads up and for your volunteering on wikipedia! Have responded in detail on Yunshui's original post. Iluvkolkata (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Final draft prior to submission

Removed draft amendment. The one that was filed can be seen at Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments on above

This looks good. Perhaps you could also suggest to ArbCom that they change the motion to "any two (or a specific few) uninvolved administrators abrogate an interaction ban restriction we imposed on Russavia, subject to our review"? I'm not sure if they would be willing to go along with it, but it might prevent you having to go back to the Committee in the future? NW (Talk) 18:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How about if this comes up in the discussion with the arbitrators? I might propose something then. I have noticed that some amendments take a long time to be acted on, so I was hoping to keep this one as simple as possible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine. NW (Talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not gonna believe this...

Hi, Ed. I have to tell you. It looks like I may have misunderstood LoveMonkey. When he first put "Maybe again" on here, it looks like he may have been pointing to Esoglou as the problem, and not me! (I wasn't sure at first.) LoveMonkey just posted on my talk page the following below:

Esoglou has a history of disruption on Wikipedia and has done a great deal of disservice to opinions and stances he does not like and he has repeatedly been given a free pass. I support Hashem and state that Esoglou does exactly what Hashem is saying he does and I have the diffs to prove it. All anyone has to do is read the list of articles esoglou has distorted the Eastern Orthodox opinion on (theoria (talkpage), filioque, [[17]] and a list of contributions [18] just search esoglou for clarity)and then how he and Richard rewrote those articles to undermine the Eastern Orthodox opinion. WHILE REFUSING TO READ VALID SOURCES ON IT. That and look at the RFC that Taiwon boi created about Esoglou. [19] This is just Esoglou continuing his abuse of contributors here on Wiki. I refuse to edit here as Esoglou has broken his agreement with Ed Johnson at least twice and got NOTHING. Now I got a 24 hour ban, for me standing up to Esoglou and his buddies on the filioque article. Just letting you know Hashem. As this is typical par for the course-- Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

When I said that this person Eso is a problem, POV-pusher, and a hounder, I was not saying it "lightly". I thought you should know what happened here. Why is this happening to LoveMonkey, and nothing seems to happen to Esoglou for his POV and hounding? I'm confused here. I'm sure that LoveMonkey was probably not perfect, but it takes two to tango. Why does it seem that Eso gets away with so much junk? Is it perhaps because he's a bit slicker maybe, and slyly (many times not always) builds some kind of "consensus", while ignoring solid sources and facts? But regardless, do you know how many times Esoglou was reverted and corrected on the "Jehovah" article, for his nonsense, inconsistencies, loaded wordings, and POV-pushing, by a number of reputable and solid editors. Ed, please tell me. What's the deal here? Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou (or whatever he changes his name this time) is completely the problem and he needs to leave Hashem alone. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for being baffled. Will somebody present diffs and say exactly what they are unhappy about? Recent events are more interesting than long-ago events. If you think Esoglou broke an agreement, where did it happen? EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Message added 03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have read your answer there. Perhaps User:Cs32en will have more to say. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could comment

On my question here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion spinned off

Since you suggested we move the discussion here, those are my brief thoughts on the i-bans. I think that we do not need on content article and discussion content; I see no reason why any editor out there should not be allowed to edit the same articles as I do, and review and discuss my edits, up to and including reverting my edits or nominating my content for AfD and such. Or why we should not be able to discuss other things, and interact on talk pages directly.

At the same time, I am strongly worried about a tendency some editors to snipe, stalk, harass and poison the well; such an attitude greatly contributes to radicalization and battleground creation. I explain this in more detail here. Bottom line is that editors may and often are able to act in a constructive fashion on content, and when they cannot, 3RR usually forces them to. What we had and still have (look at current AE threads) problems with, was people trying to win the content disputes through wikilawyering or commenting on others (personal attacks) with the intent to make them miserable enough they'd leave Wikipedia so they don't have to hear more vehemence directed at them.

Therefore I'd strongly suggest that the i-bans are clarified/reworded in such a fashion that permits the editors under them do everything, with the singular exception of discussing others. Comment on content, interact with others, but do not comment on the others. I think this should be simple enough to achieve. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This, certainly, is not very effective in situations where lone archer comes and whitewashes the whole article like this. Taking advantage of the pending bans and muted opponent benefit. Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A separate thread on interaction bans

I would like clarification which states that if editor A and B are under an interaction ban, if editor A gets to an article first, A has exclusive access to edit that article and B is banned from editing or commenting on that article in any manner which touches upon A's edits. That is what it appears is being advocated at the moment. By extension, as there is no time expiration, that also means that if editor A creates or contributes to an article, editor B can never nominate it for deletion, e.g., if A creates something B considers to be an "attack page" (and A would of course be fully aware of the potential of such interpretation), B is powerless to respond in any manner. These would all appear to be the unintended consequences of inappropriate interpretation of the interaction ban and not the intent or purpose of the interaction ban. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Such an irony... Peters, if you really support this view, you should perhaps then visit this? Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, this makes even less sense than Vlad's AE request on me. Vlad and I are not under any kind of interaction ban - unless there's something I don't know about. He's just banned from the topic area, that's it. I am having trouble understanding what these comments/requests are about and apparently so does the administrator User:Heimstern Läufer (though that's probably because he's secretly part of the EEML ;) too).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Vlad, I tire of the cynical EEML WITCH! screaming. After all, I had shown up, said what needed to be said, and departed on WP before ever reading any of the Emails that I allegedly responded to. But so be it. When you have some content you'd like to discuss, point me in the right direction—I do genuinely miss our exchanges where you inform me my ignorance is legendary. And how would our ensuing debate have been enhanced if I had filed an AE accusing you of a personal attack (or anything else)? If I were Oxford-educated, as you indicate you are, I would put my intellect to better use than filing AE requests. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And I did forget about the topic ban, meaning the only way you can participate in said topic area is for the purpose of necessary dispute resolution. (And we all see how leaving that IMHO loophole open has worked to quell the maelstrom in the race & intelligence topic area. Not!) Coincidentally, it seems, your first contribution in nine months to WP is to invoke your only means to influence content in a topic area in which you formerly participated. So, to clarify the above, I invite you to point me to any content which you can rightfully contribute. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind...

Good Morning. Would you mind taking a look at this...

Abortion

• 14:31 . . (+1,145) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Mental health: supplanted uncited & incorrect statement with "British Journal of Psychology" meta-analysis )
• 14:45 . . (-1,145) . . NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (Undone (WP:IAR on the 1RR issue; I don't consider my previous reversion to be an issue). I will explain on the talk page.))
• 14:48 . . (+2,239) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Mental health: removed superfluous word "the"; qualified statement with additional reference ) A rather disingenuous edit summary IMHO.

Abortion and mental health‎‎

• 14:50 . . (+3,860) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (inserted study from "British Journal of Psychology"; corrected statement to reflect two reliable sources )

• 14:52 . . (-3,860) . . NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (Undid revision 447865397 by Anupam (talk) -- hold off one second please, I will be placing a statement on Talk:Abortion and Talk:Abortion and mental health.)

Talk:Abortion and mental health‎‎

• 14:59 . . (+813) . . NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) (→Coleman's new meta-analysis: new section)
• 15:45 . . (+526) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Coleman's new meta-analysis: comment)

Opposition to the legalization of abortion

• 16:43 . . (+2,385) . . Anupam (talk · contribs) (→Overview: added information + reference )

Anupam does not seem interested in discussing his proposed edits and might be in violation of 1RR sanctions. Please let me know if there is other action I should take. Thanks. So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't seem to have enough time to look into this. Since the admin User:NuclearWarfare seems to be working on some of these articles, you could ask him if he thinks that any 1RR problems have occurred. He can advise you on how to follow up if you are concerned. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Appeal Part II

Hi Ed. I have adopted your advice and recommendations as you outlined here[20] In addition, I will strive to be less argumentative and more collaborative in the topic area. Given my recent edits, the acknowledgement of poor judgment and the promise to engage in a more collaborative approach, is there a small chance that perhaps now you can reverse your two-month extension to the original expiration date of September 4? Any consideration would be greatly appreciated. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's barely a week since our last conversation. I'm not inclined to lift the topic ban now. You are allowed to use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} to ask for your ban to be reviewed. Be aware that you are only banned from ARBPIA topics. There are many articles on Israel which do not mention the I/P conflict that you could improve. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding. I do appreciate your feedback. If you feel that I'm being bothersome, please let me know and I will refrain from posting here. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection template

Hi there, EdJohnston. This morning, you fully protected the page W.E (film) for three days. Do you think you could add the protection template to the page, please? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk)

Tolkien family again

Hi Ed, with regards to the Tolkien family you might want to know that I've just opened an SPI for Christopher Carrie and Klone'it. It looks much like Carrie is back with this new account despite being blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christopher Carrie. Regards, De728631 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And Carrie went on with his off-WP rants in the archived SPI case as an IP. Maybe a range block is in order to prevent him from accessing WP any longer? De728631 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a complaint, redux

You said, "If the war continues, resubmit." See this resubmission. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note for Lambanog at User talk:Lambanog#Edit warring at Coconut oil and hope that he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. One minor correction, in your closing statement you say that it's his 23rd revert. It's actually his 12th revert, but the 23rd in the war, with the other 11 being by other editors. Didn't know if you might want to correct that to avoid a possible argument, but your call, of course. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

arbpia notification

As per Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Jim_Sukwutput can you please notify the user of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I though non-admins could notify, but I saw in the template that is not the case, and since you have done the last few notes, I thought I would ask you. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This would be a Wikiquette issue if it is justified. I am not convinced this rises to the level of needing an ARBPIA warning. In any case it would make more sense for the *submitter* of the WQA to be bringing the issue here. Jim has made this response in which he asserts the shoe is on the other foot, regarding editors making POV charges in the ITN discussions. You'd have more of a case if you could show that he has a POV which is affecting article content. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So I am mistaken in thinking ARBPIA applies to ITN? The article in question is the Main Page! I agree the report is boomerangy, and said so there, but I think its fair for all the involved to be subjected to the same strict sanctions when dealing with the same topic. --Cerejota (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom thinks that warnings under ARBPIA are issued for actual misbehavior. I do not have time to figure out who is the person more responsible for the annoying remarks at ITN. Then I would have to write up what the misbehavior was. Anyway Wikiquette is supposed to be the first-pass solution for incivility that does not have to involve any admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I opened an RfC (which I promised to do before I requested your action) on considering ITN discussion on the ARBPIA topic area to be under ARBPIA, which would mean that notification would be in order anyways. Please notice my request here is not for an enforcement action - ie that you adjudicate - but simply a notification. I understand your position, but I think one should show no restraint with the notifications: anyone who even gets a whiff of ARBPIA and who as a result gets themselves in justified or unjustified DR-worthy situations should be notified. Better to err on the side of caution... ARBPIA is a highly effective tool to contain WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Cerejota (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of any talk page stalkers, I gather that your RfC is located at Wikipedia talk:In the news#RfC: Should WP:ITN area discussions on items in the WP:ARBPIA topic area be subjected to WP:ARBPIA itself?. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Which was closed without prejudice as not fitting for WP:ITN. I will reopen somewhere more appropriate.--Cerejota (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ed, I just want to thank you for investing your good faith in us and your time in drafting Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Russavia-Biophys. With this amendment request now open and others like VM having aired their concerns, Arbcom is now a position to examine the issue of these interaction bans. Therefore those AE cases against Vecrumba can now to be closed with no further action as it is in ArbCom's hands now. Thanks again. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that Vecrumba is now off the hook. If the Committee choses to comment on his role, that is fine, but the issues on the AE board still need AE attention. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well since AE is about enforcing ArbCom decisions, it may well be prudent to wait for the conclusion of the discussion there before acting on these current cases. See the comments of the closing admin of the AfD, recalling both sides were involved in previous EE disputes, which in part vindicates Vecrumba's observation. If this AfD wasn't created the way it was, Vecrumba wouldn't have commented. Both you and TC were contemplating a one week block for both parties, I don't think one should be let off while the other is given a punitive sanction. The whole point of moving forward with a request to Arbcom was to de-escalate for both, not give a way out for one, or was I mistaken in believing this? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry to bother you again

Since you closed the AE report by User:Cs32en, he did this on my talk page [21], not only ignoring common sense and WP:DTTR, but basing himself on a comment done before the AE complaint was in place, and which he used as a diff in the AE (in other words, something that was already under consideration at an AE but was felt to not need any action) - so templating is spurious at best. Please do something about it - it is obvious he needs some prodding to understand why this behavior is unacceptable, in particular, I have not edited or communicated with him since the AE was closed, so this is completely out of left field.--Cerejota (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note at Cs32en's talk page, though possibly not on the same thing which bothered you. I hope this will quiet down soon. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah its the same general principle, realizing that horsemeat is present and ready for sale. Cs32en seems not to have any notion of how to let it drop.--Cerejota (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding coconut oil

My answer to Yobol's criticism is on Talk:coconut oil. Basically 2 of the 5 people he claims are editing against me made procedural edits. One requested talk page discussion first, not seeing the previous sections that had been archived; when a new section was started no more was heard. Another editor as Yobol's edit clearly shows added the NPOV section tag, seeing my disagreement with the others. Ronz, WLU, and Yobol have a distinct POV patrolling editing pattern that intentionally or not results in tag teaming, as such I think their assertions of consensus are questionable. Since in the main they do not build articles (I think I can claim to have significantly contributed to more GA/FA class articles than all of them combined) they are not tied down and freely flit from one article to another. On any particular article they may represent the majority at any one time but given the number of editors they edit against over an article's history and across Wikipedia they are actually a minority.

It might be useful to see what happened at another tangentially related article Mary G. Enig, where Ronz, Yobol and one of the other editors Yobol claims to support their stand mediated a little. Maybe after seeing what I was up against there when I was attempting to improve that article that editor decided not to involve himself much further in this one. As I see it one either supports the editor with a track record of building articles or one supports the clutch of editors who have a record of obstructing articles and alienating editors. Lambanog (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. See here. Of course it didn't stop Yobol from presenting this as evidence for his side [22]. As for not responding, not everyone is in your time zone. I was planning on a response the next time I logged on. Lambanog (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The overall pattern of reverts at Coconut oil seems to be Lambanog vs. the world. The whole talk page shows the one-sidedness of the debate. The previous 3RR report breaks down all the details of the months-long revert war and all the places where external feedback was sought. Even somebody who has a track record of building articles is expected to abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

request

Can you please take a look at my contributions to Gaza flotilla raid? I understand the technical nature of 1RR, but I am collaborating in the discussion so I don't see how a topic ban would help. My edits have improved the quality of the article, and editor I reverted hasn't made any requests. I'm just saying, I've contributed a lot. Remember, I self-reverted my original revert. though I'm not sure if that matters. Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems your enthusiasm for your cause has been influencing your edits too much. In the past we could try to cool down an editor who seemed to be losing their perspective with a personal 1RR, but now the only option is a topic ban. (Since all the I/P articles are under 1RR). Can you think of any other option? EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the concept of 1RR, which is why I self-reverted less than an hour after my edit. The tag is no longer in the article. The issue, in my opinion, is now a technical matter. If you feel my presence at Gaza flotilla raid has been in bad faith, or disruptive, I will voluntarily recuse myself. But I'm just asking, what is the purpose of this particularly topic ban other than to punish? I've contributed a lot to the topic area, created articles, suggested ITN blurbs (that have been posted), worked at AFDs, etc. I feel like this is getting blown way out of proportion. As an editor, do you really believe I deserve a topic ban? Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you just returned from your second topic ban, I would expect to see an abundance of caution and a lot of consulting other users. Removing a tag *twice* on one of the hottest I/P articles, Gaza flotilla raid, would not be a smart move for anyone trying to keep a low profile after a previous sanction. Nableezy did leave you a properly-worded prediction of what might happen, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been cautious, trust me and like I said I did self-revert an hour after the revert. The edit was live for an hour. And then an admin removed the tag under my rationale. It was in good faith, I wasn't attempting to war with Night and if you look at the discussion we are getting a long quite well. Do you feel a topic ban is an appropriate response for this issue? As an editor? Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So your position is:

1. You did nothing wrong
2. You have no suggestions of anything you could do differently in the future to avoid constant AE reports. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just checking that that is your position. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not my answer. I clearly did something wrong, but I did self-revert and followed the discussion in the talk page. I have suggested a voluntary removal from Gaza flotilla raid if you feel that is needed, if disruption is your concern. I understand I need to be more careful when removing tags and other editors contributions. Now what is your answer? I felt I've provided a thorough explanation of the background of this issue, including context. Considering the edits themselves - a removal of a tag (that has since been removed by an admin under my same rationale) - do they justify a topic ban?

Have you read my participation in the discussion? ARBPIA is designed to deter users from disruption and battleground behavior. 1RR is a pillar of ARBPIA, but I did self-revert an hour after my second edit. I truly am sorry if the community feels this violation warrants a complete topic ban. If there are alternatives to this topic ban you have suggested I am open to it. The original editor Nightw who I reverted hasn't challenged my edit, and we have collaborated productively at the talk page to improve the lead. So far we are close to a consensus in balancing the intro, which was Night's original concern. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So do you question what I wrote above? I am open to your suggestions. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see if other admins will comment at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

All right thanks. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

EWN notify

Thanks for doing that. I looked and looked and couldn't find a template like the ones that exist for AN and ANI - am I missing something, or does one not exist? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a {{uw-3rr}} for a standard warning of the 3RR rule. That is different from telling them that a complaint has been opened at WP:AN3. I usually hand-write the notice that someone has been reported at AN3. (It is not required that someone be informed of that, but it's a good practice). You can invent your own template if you want, and keep it somewhere like User:Roscelese/new_template. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I should do that. (Is it generally done to keep such templates in user space? A little while back, I created Template:Uw-1rrAbortion, because I was tired of writing personalized notes to everyone who was unaware or feigned unawareness of the sanctions, and asked for feedback at the sanctions page and the UW discussion page, but got nothing.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Template:Uw-1rrAbortion. It stays close to well-known policy and practice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comments

Hello. I am writing in regard to your comments [23] suggesting that I am linked to someone else's account(s), such as User:Hetoum I. Please run the checkuser for yourself to find out very clearly that I cannot be linked to User:Hetoum I. This is impossible. Thanks. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see a note by Jdelanoy [24] who confirmed that he did not use Wikistalk because Wikistalk can produce misleading results. However, he claimed below that he used Wikistalk. Also about his comment [25] on "they geolocate to the same general area." What is "same general area"? I edit from a metropolitan area which is one of the largest in the world, with millions of users relying on one provider. This provider has thousands of migrating IPs. I think this is a coincidence which drew attention because a few editors gravitate to the same articles and topics. But this is normal. If someone is interested in the topic of Nagorno-Karabakh, he/she is naturally involved in the articles on Shusha, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Nagorno-Karabakh War, Caucasian Albania because all of them are key sub-topics for Nagorno-Karabakh. Please note that User:Hetoum I, User:Bars77 or User:Gorzaim were never involved in two large articles that I authored and edited almost alone - Nor Varagavank and Hovhannes Imastaser. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at The Last Angry Man's talk page.
Message added 23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Could you please let me know were I stand on this issue? It is a little nerve wracking to be waiting to get banned for no reason again, Thanks. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, just to say thank you for the chance to prove myself, and I should like to point out that this Reverted 1 edit by Igny (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by The Last Angry Man was actually a mistake, I had hit the button by accident (Igny took it to ANI and my explanation was accepted) If you look at the next edit [26] you will see I self reverted straight away. Thanks again, I shall follow your advise. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GluckLab

Looks to me like they want to be unblocked in order to continue the same pattern of COI edits they displayed before. What if anything else will they be doing here? Is this really Gluck himself hiding behind his lab's name; or maybe his secretary/assistant/intern/grad student? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby

Hi Ed. Following up an email from Wisco2000 (I guess to me because I've blocked the above user before), I've just been looking at Revision history of National Liberation War of Macedonia and Talk:National_Liberation_War_of_Macedonia#Bulgaria_declares_war_on_Germany. I also see from Jingiby's talk page that there's been a recent AE case in which he promised to behave himself; the above links don't look too good in that light. Since you've been interacting with him I thought I'd ask if you don't mind taking a look yourself. My feeling is that Jingiby should be reblocked, but a second opinion from someone more familiar that I am with recent events would be welcome. Best, EyeSerene^talk 16:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Since he was at AE so recently, a one-month block would be justified if you want to do it. Short of that, my suggestion would be to apply an article-1RR restriction at National Liberation War of Macedonia. Though this spat looks bad, better articles sometimes get produced through such warfare, and this is a decent topic that could use improvement. (By Eastern European standards this is almost a friendly discussion). If you have no experience of placing 1RRs under ARBMAC, I can give you the steps. It can be done through WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions by a single admin. Log your action at WP:ARBMAC#Article Level Restrictions and place a notice on the article talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Pike on CT

I took your previous advice and have done an RFC, would you be so kind as to ensure I have done it correctly, thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems OK, but why not include your proposed new wording in the RfC? At present, the Communist terrorism article says: 'Douglas Pike has called the Massacre at Huế <such and such>', which might be OK as it is, for some people. Do you want to change it to 'Historian Douglas Pike..' ? Consider if that change would be of great importance to you, because the RfC could lead to a long debate. (I take no position on whether 'historian' is the best single word, just that you will encounter a range of views on it). EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the person who has been described as the greatest scholar in the field should at least be called an historian, and not a government flunky :o) I am worried that Igny will put his version back in, I hope to garner a consensus for "as is" or "historian". Thanks for looking at it for me. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone following this issue, TLAM has created his RfC on how to describe Douglas Pike at Talk:Communist terrorism#Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby's reply about National Liberation War of Macedonia

My edits on the article National Liberation War of Macedonia were restoration of the whole deleted from Wisc02000 chapter. When it has existed since two years and was deleted without any explanation, I have just restored it. By the way, Wisc02000 is not interested in any constructive discussions not since now. He has only maintained to make his disruptions everywhere on Macedonian-Bulgarian related articles since he has appeared on Wiki. He is not interested also in reliable references and sources, but only in POV-pushing. Sorry, but I really did not find any formula to communicate with such strange people. I am placing now the 1RR restriction to myself for this article for a period of two months. Also I did not broke the 3RR, and I hope never to do that. Regs. Jingby (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing sacred about the old version of the article. You don't get any special dispensation to restore it. You should wait for the outcome of a discussion. Wisco2000 is on thin ice as well, but I was hoping that your promise of 'better behavior' actually meant something. I have encouraged EyeSerene to make a decision on blocks or some other restriction for those who engaged in edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jingby (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I missed the discussion here, so let me state what changes were made and why:

1. The majority of the section was not pertinent to the article and there was a disproportionate amount of real-estate dedicated it. The fact that the Bulgarians went all the way to Hungary, that they took part in liberation of Belgrade, that they had negotiations in Turkey, all of that doesn't relate to what was going on in Macedonia. Jingiby can put them elsewhere. It is more appropriate for Bulgaria, Serbia, something else.

2. The section did not follow the chronological layout of the article and was repeating topics already covered in the next section. For instance, towards the end in the section "Bulgaria declares war on Germany" it said "... Wehrmacht was driven from the villages of Delchevo, Kocani, Stip, Strumica and Veles" and the fourth paragraph in "Final operations for the liberation of Macedonia" starts talking about the same thing. Towns/villages in Macedonia getting liberated doesn't seem to belong in a section called "Bulgaria declares war on Germany" when there is a section "Final operations for the liberation of Macedonia" that also happens to cover the events there.

3. A large portion of the references were moved down (not deleted) where I gave credit to Bulgaria's contribution, the sentence starting with "Despite Bulgaria's significant involvement on the side of the Allies at the end of the war ..."

4. Jingiby adds statements (in the article, as well as on the talkpage with me and other users) like "There were only Bulgarian soldiers in Macedonia at that time, no partisans" yet, the whole article somehow doesn't speak to him otherwise. My thought was that based on WP:YESPOV 'Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts' and WP:UNDUE (If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.) saying things like "there were no partisans" falls in that category the NPOV conflict.

5. Jingiby's comments and labels/threats like "politically motivated" "disruptive" "nationalistic" "vandalism" "if you are continuing you disruptive edits I am going to ..." etc. on the talk page don't help the discussion.

6. It's always the same two editors that pop up on the same articles, and they have to put Bulgaria into something about Macedonia: Jingiby and Laveol. Seems to me like meatpuppetry.

7. I would advise someone to also check from time-to-time the references he actually adds that they are verifiable, unbiased and that back up his claims. Most of the time, they don't, and I have seen where he even completely misrepresents them. For instance, in a similar situation with the article on Skopje, he added a sentence:

During the occupation, Bulgaria endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University

When you opened the reference, it said: Bulgarian rule of Macedonia used every pressure to convince or coerce the inhabitants into thinking they were Bulgars and, for most Macedonians, the experience ended any with to be ruled from Sofia. Bulgaria opened as many as 800 schools in Yugoslav Macedonia and sent teachers and priests to ‘Bulgarise’ the people. Bulgaria also endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University. The general policy of the Bulgarian occupation authorities was to win over the inhabitants … with generous treatment… This evidently failed.

First, he copied the sentence verbatim from the reference (third sentence above), constituting clear plagiarism. Second, the spirit of the reference (when read in full) is that Bulgaria wasn't opening schools out of generosity, but it was a repressive measure that backlashed. The way the sentence was in the Wiki article missed the entire point of the reference.

So all I am trying to do is to clean up some of those things.

Hope this helps.

Wisco2000 (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For instance Wisco2000, I never have added the sentence: During the occupation, Bulgaria endowed Skopje with a national theatre, a library, a museum and for higher education the King Boris University. Could you provide this edit? If no, this is fabrication. However, this statement is undisputable, reliable fact. You can check it:[27] Jingby (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You claim: ...Jingiby adds statements (in the article, as well as on the talkpage with me and other users) like "There were only Bulgarian soldiers in Macedonia at that time, no partisans". Second manipulation, out of the context. Of course, I never added such statement in the article and my opinion on the talk page is clear:[28]. Can you explain please, why are you insisting to deny the presence of 200,000 Bulgarian soldiers in Macedonia at that time. If I know the number of the Yugoslav partisans in the area in September 1944 was around 15,000 man ant this topic is taboo in your country. Jingby (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, Jingiby has 2,257 contributions in 2011 alone. That's an average of 262 per month. The articles he focuses on exclusively are the hit parade of subjects that Macedonian and Bulgarian historians have been arguing over for years. His edits boil down to making pro-Bulgarian statements and reverting/deleting/removing anything that doesn't add a Bulgarian character to Macedonia and the Macedonians. Given the sensitivity of the articles, is it a surprise that at a rate of 262 contributions per month someone will find his contributions offensive? How much regard has Jingiby shown for that? How many times has he gotten support from the others before doing such an overhaul on the whole issue?

His idea of discussion: add the most POV possible, find references from google books by searching for the article name and Bulgarian (ideally Bulgarian sources so no admin can verify them), then when someone changes it, scream 'edit war' 3rr, similar Wikispeak, call the person 'nationalist', 'spreading propaganda', 'get some glasses', and have the meatpupped Laveol do some of the reverts so they don't get blocked. That's not an honest discussion. Nobody can change his edits that way.

I don't think that's what anyone should be allowed to do, definitely not someone with 15 blocks. I don't think he has learned much about behaving well. He's just gaming the system.

Wisco2000 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any proofs in support of your statements and my two questions above, but only new ridiculous accusations. Does that mean both your claims were pure fabrications? Jingby (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about reverts

I've got involved in the editing of the page which is under 1RR restrictions, so I should be extremely cautious. Could you (as admin involved in decisions on edit warring/3RR disputes) advise if 2 subsequent edits of mine, each of which is a (partial) revert, would count as one revert or two reverts? I mean that if I'd noticed both deficiencies before, I'd make only one single edit, changing the page in two places, but now after I've fixed one issue, am I allowed to fix another one without being blocked for violating 1RR? Ipsign (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If no-one else has edited the page since your first revert, then adding a second revert would still count as being one revert together. As I understand it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what Demiurge1000 said. The policy at WP:Edit warring is hopefully clear about this. Search for the word 'consecutive'. If your concern is about Thread (computer science), I think you've done the right thing by posting about this on the article talk page, and by notifying the editor directly. If he restores his material again you should consider making a report at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying it (somehow I've missed sentence about consecutive edits when I've read 3RR policy, sigh). Ipsign (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Truefact1979 evading block

Hi, you blocked Truefact1979 a few hours ago for edit warring. I said in my report at AN3 that it seemed very likely that they had also been editing while logged out (assuming good faith that it was not a deliberate act). Soon after your block one of the two IPs I mentioned started up again - see Special:Contributions/64.105.174.210. I am sure that this is block evasion as the quacking is loud. Can anything be done regarding situations such as this? I am aware that checkuser will not connected IPs to usernames. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The 64.105 IP may deserve blocking for two weeks as a sock of Truefact1979. I am not sure about the second IP which is in a different part of California. Consider filing at WP:SPI. I don't have time to look into this now but I'll be back later today. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Truefact1979 has now been indef blocked as a sock of someone else, via an SPI raised by someone else. Since SPI's will not link IPs to usernames, it would appear to be wasting people's time opening a case for the IPs. Behaviourally, including the idiosyncratic pasting of GBooks links in edit summaries, article selection and general phrasing, the two IPs are the same person, perhaps posting from home and from a workplace. But it looks like we'll just have to live with it. Yadav is one of those articles that seems to attract such people, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The 64.105 IP is now blocked. See my update at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Truefact1979 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Indef). It is far from a waste of time to file SPI reports on IPs. Admins at that board can block on behavior, even though checkuser will usually not identify IPs with registered users. Although 8.18.192.2 (talk · contribs) is not currently blocked, if you perceive that he is creating any further problems let me know and I will check the behavioral evidence again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for your work regarding this issue - it is much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

After just trying again to make a poor contribution at Talk:Yadav, the 8.x IP has now taken myself and MatthewVanitas to WP:ANI. Waste of time, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Now blocked for 3 months by MuZemike as a sock of the same user. Raising their head at ANI has boomeranged. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SPI on an IP whose unblock you declined

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC. You declined to unblock 76.31.236.91 (talk · contribs) and I believe you were correct. Toddst1 (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the user links for the IP:

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

Toddst1, it was helpful that you restored the RfC from the deleted talk page. Regarding the wisdom of unblocking the IP, wait a couple of days to see how that goes. User:DragonflySixtyseven disagrees with you at the moment. If the IP turns out to be unwilling to follow Wikipedia policies in the ensuing discussions, he is likely to lose any remaining sympathy. There don't seem to be any problems with your actions. It appears that the IP is following the deal he made with DragonflySixtyseven to limit his edits to Talk:Least I Could Do, his own talk page and that of DS67. There is not much justification for the IP's colorful remarks about you at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven but your reply was rather indignant. You should not be too worried.

There are other relevant links at User talk:Elizium23#WP:ANI and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#coordinated attack from Dragoncon. What a mess!

If your view is that the IP should be reblocked as a meatpuppet you could start a thread at ANI, but I would suggest waiting a bit. The passage of time may show that you were correct. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia, continued from above

Hello Jingiby and Wisco2000. Here are some thoughts in response to your statements. See the discussion above at #Jingiby and #Jingiby's reply about National Liberation War of Macedonia. Some of the data you provided might be useful in improving the National Liberation War article. The edit war makes it seem unlikely that you will pause long enough before reverting one another to actually have a discussion. It would be great if you could have a source-based discussion at Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia. You could also make a list of proposed sources on the talk page. If this hope is in vain, and if the war spreads out to other articles, admins may throw up their hands and just hand out a bunch of WP:ARBMAC sanctions, so please demonstrate some patience. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello,sorry to disturb with a question as this is not something wich has to see with the wiki.en. And very sorry about my english too. I'm sysop on a little wiki and faced with an user who ist cutting article's text to put them on another page just to avoid other noticing his dids and to write them as he wants, destroying like that he page history. I was wondering wich would be done on a big wiki, knowing he is not at his first wrongdoing. --Kadwalan (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This must be about the Breton Wikipedia. Do you have the equivalent of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? You could ask the question there. I assume you've already discussed this with the user but didn't get a satisfactory response. If there is no ANI, find some other admin who works on br.wikipedia.org to talk it over with. What you've presented above sounds like a case of WP:Disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ezra Nawi

Ed. I've just tried to overhaul that article that caused quite a bit of a ruckus back in August, esp. of WP:BLP. I think one cannot exclude a summary of the details, and I think the best neutral report was provided by McDonald of the Irish Times. I know a lot of editors would prefer this not to be mentioned, while others might be tempted to jump at it for tabloid expansion. I'd appreciate if you gave it a lookover, to see if it strikes the right balance. It is the section most liable to POV-warring for point-scoring in the I/P area. And I hope the compromise I have tried to write covers both sides. Let me know if I've either overstepped or understepped the mark. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ezra Nawi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your recent changes are so extensive that it would be hard for me to review them. Maybe you could add a summary on the talk page of the issues that your changes are hoping to fix. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The new version reads well. Good luck on the talk page in persuading the others, and I hope there are no new edit wars. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

An IP is now carrying on the edit war at Lodhi

Posted an update at 3RR: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur_reported_by_User:Sitush_.28Result:_48h.29 MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And another update: the original problematic contributor is now making legal threats. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if he answers the request to withdraw the legal threat. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Another admin has now blocked indef for the legal threat. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit restrictions

[29] This again appears to be Esoglou posting the Eastern Orthodox position outside of being from a Roman Catholic perspective. That would again be Esoglou violating edit restrictions. Look if you have time on Esoglou's talkpage (and in this posted edit/diff summary), you can see that he is edit warring again. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note for Esoglou. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

MY EDIT WHITE BRAZILLIAN

Hello EdJohnston

As you requested i have explained my reasons for my edit on Talk:White Brazilian I have included the quotes i dont not belive are supported in the source provided, and included an example of a criticism made by Sergio Pena.

--E22megan (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong

Could you please warn user:Dalai lama ding dong of WP:ARBPIA sanctions as he edit warred [30] and I think he broke 1RR

1.[31]

2.[32]

though I am not sure about that. Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Notified the editor of the discretionary sanctions and placed an ARBPIA template on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed are we talking about the 16th Sept? If so, then I could just as easily have made my changes in one edit. But I made two as the article contains a clear breach of NPOV. I understand the point of the 1RR sanction, but it does seem to prevent the correction of an article which is marked as being possibly unbalanced or inaccurate. The article needs a complete re write, as it is basically a cut and paste from one report. IRR could mean that it all has to be done at once. Thanks for the warning. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Page: Textbooks in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Editor being discussed Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recent edits at Textbooks in Israel
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
21:13, 13 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Analysis of Israeli textbooks */") 21:16, 13 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conflicting findings */") 19:11, 14 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Analysis of Israeli textbooks */ Restored reference to make clear the extent of the review. Since most of this article is word for word from the report, this should not be removed.") 19:16, 14 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conflicting findings */ This section helps to preserve NPOV and balance the undue weight given to what is otherwise the CMIP report. Without due weight given to all points of view, this will have to be retitled CMIP report into Israeli textbook") 19:18, 14 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2001 update */ Reference to Israeli Palestinian relations is not relevant. This is extraneous information.") 08:35, 16 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* 2001 update */ Stop the edit warring. Relations between Israel and Palestine are irrelevant to the CMIP findings.") 08:38, 16 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conflicting findings */ Stop the edit warring. The term activist is non NPOV, and irrelevant to the findings. Do not revert without discussion first. This section restores balance to an article that is just a cut and paste from a CMIP report.") 16:32, 16 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conflicting findings */ Added in section on Arabic textbooks, as this is missing.") 10:59, 17 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 450829320 by Brewcrewer (talk) The word activist is clearly not NPOV. Stop the edit warring please.")

The quote about "hundreds and hundreds" was re-added by you after being removed by another editor, and that looks to be edit warring. I do not see anywhere on the talk page where you got consensus for the change. The job of fixing POV articles belongs to all editors collectively. You don't get carte blanche to revert war just because you think an article is unbalanced. You continued to revert after getting an ARBPIA warning, which puts you in an awkward spot. It would be sensible to take a break from editing the article, since other editors are likely to ask for enforcement of the rules. A WP:Request for comment can be used to seek consensus on a disputed matter. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess we are discussing the Revision as of 08:38, 16 September 2011? I did add the term hundreds and hundreds, this phrase comes from the education in israel page, and as of yesterday had caused no problem there. I also removed the term 'activist' at the same time, arguing that it is not neutral, this change has been made at other articles, and it has been accepted there. The note changing it refers to well poisoning, I can find it if you wish. I though that the 1RR was concerned with reverting more than once in twenty four hours, and not to do with the content of the revert. It is not me who is claiming that the article is unbalanced, I am referring to the article itself, which is marked as 'may be unbalanced or inaccurate.' I would appreciate a link to how I can mark the article as being largely from one source, as it needs to be re written to precis the report that it is copied it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)

You can ask this type of question on the article talk. It was probably not an actual 1RR violation; the list of reverts is above. The quick restoration of the same material without getting consensus shows that it was edit warring. I notice that you were among those involved in a revert war at Itamar attack which led to that article being fully protected on 5 September. You are now constantly removing the same passage from the lead of the article, waiting at least 24 hours between removals. This is getting close to the point where admin action is needed. Your edit summary "I have not quite waited twenty four hours, so I will wait and do this later" will be perceived by some admins as gaming the restriction. There is no evidence that the editors on talk support your action; you are not even discussing it there. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. In that case please remove the 1RR warning, as it is 'probably not justified'. With regard to itamar attack, the reference to 24 hours is genuine, as otherwise I would have just left it there. I am one of the editors at this article, and I not the only one involved in this edit war. The individual who added the contentious material did not discuss the addition, and it resulted in a passage that stated that those convicted had confessed being repeated twice. I do not believe that the claim that one of those convicted stated that they did not regret their actions belongs in the lead, as it seems to me to be detail. In these circumstances why is not up to those adding the material to seek concensus? Otherwise we end up with a situation where anyone can add anything, and someone else has to seek concensus to remove it.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the claim on your talk page that you made a 1RR violation. Bad behavior by others (even if real) does not give you any extra license to revert stuff. "I am not the only one involved in this edit war." Should we give out awards for not being the only one? See WP:3RR for the list of exceptions that allow reverts to be made without penalty. This is not one of of the exceptions. If a dispute is continuing, consider a WP:Request for comment. This is more notice than we usually give people that they are close to the line; please pay attention. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AgadaUrbanit AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In a related matter

Hi again Ed, you are currently dealing with an issue I raised here which follows on from this discussion here. Having filed a report for engaging in personal attacks, this editor despite the ongoing discussion is still making unfound and unsupported accusations, which can only be viewed as personal attacks. The other editor who I cite in my Enforcement Report and has been turning article talk pages into battlegrounds is the one filing this Disruptive behaviour. Could you possibly ask that this stop now, and that any future reports/accusations be supported by diff's. Thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 14:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In support of my statement above, here are a number of examples were article talk pages are being undermined because of this battleground mentality, [33][34][35][36][37][38].--Domer48_'fenian' 14:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a case of canvassing?

Out of curiousity Domer48, shouldn't you out of civility notify editors when making allegations about them so they can answer them? Whilst your comments towards Jonchapple may have validity to some degree, in regards to me they do not. The examples you provide for alleged "battleground" behaviour in regards to me i find very ironic when i've presented valid arguements where as you've contributed only dismissive comments or fail to answer questions asked of you and i've been forced to report you to AN/I for this disruptive behaviour.

1. [39] - There was no battlefield mentatlity about my responses here, i made comments (which several editors agreed to), and asked Scolaire very valid questions which they didn't answer. Yes it got heated at times but it was a very cool heat if not luke warm and it got resolved.
2. [40] - Where is the battleground behaviour from me?.
3. [41] - How is this battleground behaviour? I raised valid points and then belatedly realised that a previous discussion had already taken place where an editor had provided evidence which i assumed good faith with and dropped my opposition. I would say thats colloborative. Scolaire's responses however were more battleground behaviour but i didn't report them for it.
4. [42] - I accused Domer48 of wikilawyering which i feel is vindicated as they are WP:Policy shopping without providing any evidence as to how exactly the policies are violated. My statement at the end is validated by their responses in that discussion and several editors also have voiced the same or similar responses towards Domer48 and his fellow objectors on the talk page.
5. [43] - Where is the battleground behaviour? You fail to answer my question about the relevance of the section and my request for sources to backup your opinion. This talk page is where you disruptive behaviour is most evident.

If i am guilty of anything it's assuming bad faith with Domer48 and sometimes being a little rash in my responses, as their behaviour style in regards to discussions only creates bad faith and leads to tension, hence his many quarrels with Jonchapple. Do i dare suggest you compare our block logs for a quick character assessment or is that treading into the mirky realm of ad hominem myself?

If Domer48 would simply collaborate and provide evidence to backup his claims when asked - things would be sorted out a lot quicker and quieter. Thus i wouldn't be surprised if this highlights a blatant case of WP:BOOMERANG in regards to Domer48. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Metal Gear

Currently the article's move has not been reverted depite the user's contributions. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested the account creation tool

Here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at CimanyD's talk page.
Message added 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

ACC mailing list

My apologizes for the delay in approving you account, (Technical difficulties). You should have a conformation email in your box. Cheers Mlpearc powwow 14:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess who

HelloRohil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Gone already. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Account creation tool

Hello Stifle. I seem to have a login for this tool but I can't use it because I was suspended for inactivity. Can I be reinstated? Since I started handling some cases at unblock-en-l I realize I should be able to create accounts properly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been suspended too I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuad was able to fix this for me. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A/E case

Hi Ed, hope you're having a good evening. I've left one last statement here. Hope you'll reconsider. Best, 90.203.29.146 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That was me. For some reason it logged me out. JonC^Talk 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you, Ed. You won't regret it. JonC^Talk 18:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Ed it’s about a month (I think) since we last spoke. I’m already half way into my extended 2-month topic ban which you imposed, with about a month left to go. Add this to the six months that I’ve already served and it equals seven consecutive months of near scrupulous adherence to the provisions of the topic ban. Since I’ve got only one month left to go and I’ve made substantive contributions to other topic areas, I was wondering if you can give me a reprieve and lift the ban. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See two previous discussions in User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 23, both within the past month. I would not support lifting your restriction at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sock of Micoapostolov (talk · contribs)

Hi Ed. A sock of a long ago indefinitely blocked User:Micoapostolov has since several months destructing with his extremely nationalistic POV-views nearly all Macedonian-Bulgarian related articles from different IP-accounts. I recognize him by the one and the same geolocation-Aracinovo, near Skopje. The last from his targets now is the article Grigor Parlichev‎ under 77.29.34.131 (talk · contribs). He is usually active under 31.11.73.31 (talk · contribs) and has vandalized recently my personal talk-page:[44]. He is active under 77.29.125.60 (talk · contribs); 89.212.187.231 (talk · contribs); 89.205.49.28 (talk · contribs) and many other accounts. How to deal wit him? Regs. Jingby (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I suspect Wisco2000 (talk · contribs) was his sock, but I can not check his geolocation. He is not more active. Jingby (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and type in '8MA8'. This will allow you to add new information to the previous complaints about Mico Apostolov socks. The previous case can be viewed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/8MA8. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jingby (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

King Cobra

Hey Ed, I see that you blocked Fearingpredators for edit warring in the king cobra article. I have repeatedly tried to discuss the article with him, but he would never reply to me (check out his talk page). He would always just clear his talk page. He really has basically held the king cobra article hostage. Much of the material (specifically under the "Venom" section) is either completely untrue or very misleading. He has admitted to being an amateur in the subject, while I have a relevant degree. I just wanted to ask you if I can clean up the "Venom" section of the king cobra article to a more objective/factual version. Bastian (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is best if you propose something on the article talk page, and give him a chance to comment after he returns from this block. In the mean time, if you have changes to make that are not controversial, you should go ahead and make them. The beef against Fearingpredators was that he was ignoring the talk page, and just going ahead regardless. Others should demonstrate their good faith by showing that they want to reach a conclusion on talk if they can. If Fearingpredators is truly ultra-stubborn and will not listen to others' opinions, the system will probably take appropriate action in due time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with him is that he has a more subjective or mythical view of the King cobra than an objective one. He wants it to be the biggest, baddest snake out there and that is just not the case (for example, it's not even part of the Big Four Asian Snakes). It is the largest venomous snake in the world, but that is all that is distinct about it. It's bites deliver a massive quantity of a weak venom, but because of the quantity it delivers in a bite, it can kill a human being in a single bite and it most definitely can kill it's prey. So it evolved as a "quantity over toxicity" type of snake. It's bites were enough to kill its prey, so it didn't require an highly toxic venom, unlike many smaller species which can't deliver the same amount of venom that the KC can. These snakes would evolve to have more toxic venoms than a KC. I mean this is basic stuff, but his refusal to communicate with me and his refusal to write an objective and factual article is just beyond me. I am going to go ahead and edit a few things which are misleading or untrue. I just hope it's not going to be considered edit warring. Bastian (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If, after his block expires, you perceive that Fearingpredators continues to make the same kind of reverts that were mentioned at AN3 before, then you can make a new complaint without waiting for exactly three reverts. Consider opening a discussion at WP:RSN if there is a debate about the quality of sources. The effect of snake bites should fall under WP:MEDRS and that is very strict about marginal sources. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. So if he continues with his myths and conjecture, I can just open a discussion about it at WP:RSN? Or where would I make a complaint? I cleaned up the "Venom" section of the King cobra article. If you can take a minute to look at it and tell me what you think, I'd appreciate it. Bastian (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey again Ed, sorry I don't mean to bother you at all, but I was wondering if you had looked at the "Venom" section of the king cobra article yet? Everything in that section is now well-written and everything is sourced. I just wanted to see what you think of it? I sent Fearingpredators some messages on his talk page and he plans on coming back and just basically taking the section and turning it back into what it was: a total mess. I am not going to get dragged into an edit war, but what can I do to keep that particular section of the article the way it is now: objective, factual, and well-sourced. At least the sources I have put up claim what the article claims. Before that, he had things like "mortality rate of king cobra bite is 75%", but none of the references he had put next to that statement claimed such a thing. Then he had the exact same situation with a couple of more statements - the one which stated that "a king cobra bite can kill a person in 15 minutes" and "the average death time is 30-45 minutes". None of the references stated such a thing and in fact, an University of Adelaide study put the mortality rate of an untreated bite at 50-60% (which I sourced) and another source claimed that mortality rate varies sharply, with most bites being non-fatal to humans. I didn't make those up like he did with his "75% mortality rate" and his "death is caused in 15 minutes" junk. I hope you give it a read, look at the references just to confirm my work, and tell me what you think. Thanks in advance. Bastian (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We expect both you and Fearingpredators to work patiently toward consensus when he returns. (I don't see much value in you posting on his talk page while he is still blocked). You could also ask User:Ruud Koot for his opinion since he's been editing the article recently. Quality of the sources can be discussed at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. To bring in more snake experts, consider posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. If there is a dispute and no solution seems possible, you can open a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you. The above information is referenced (you can check every references there) but the user kept removing these things which are considered by him as "myths"(the references cited for supporting the death time in the article do have such statements; moreover,he even claimed that the book which I was asked to scan some pages and add to the references is not toxicology study which I think it is insulting the authors as you can see what he stated in my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fearingpredators). I would like to request administrator's attention on this article. Another thing is that I think there are several exaggerations in the article black mamba and two references there don't claim what the sentences state. So I would like to ask where can I request for attention or even intervention of administrators who have related knowledge (or are snake experts) as I believe that they can make an objective judgment on the accuracy of these two articles?

I apologize for being involved in the edit warring since I am not used to talking much in English which is not my first language. Now, I did some modifications in the article king cobra (you can check it to see whether it is legitimate) but I'm afraid that the user will remove the information with references I added back. So, I would like to request for the attention of administrators. Thank you! User:Fearingpredators (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You apologize for edit warring, but this does not seem sincere, since you went right back to edit warring at King Cobra after your block expired. I am leaving a warning now on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that since I don't know that I can't make the edit(I have stated the reason on the discussion page). This means that I need to undo such changes? or it should be done by administrators? User:Fearingpredators (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You should undo your last two edits yourself, and wait and see if any editors agree with you on the talk page. The editors should decide on what should go in the article, not administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

King Cobra, again

Hey Ed, it seems like Fearingpredators is at it again. I just wrote this message to him and debunked his claims and references, please take a moment to go over it to confirm that the way I had it was good. Even Jasper Deng agrees that my version was much better.

Fearingpredators, okay I am going to dice and slice all your claims and your references right here once and for all. You didn't "do some references and added back information" - you reverted it back to what you had it before. Now you claim:

A single bite from it can cause the death of an adult human in 15 minutes and your reference this, which doesn't claim such a thing at all and this NYTimes article written by Sean B Carroll, lol, who is he? The new guru on herpetology. That second one is NOT a scientific source, it is a news paper article written by some schmuck columnist who is as clueless as you seem to be. The University of San Diego's Terence Davidson says that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER Check it out here.

On to the next now:

"though the average death time recorded is between 30–45 minutes after envenomation." (this statement just kills me, lol) and your references are here, which doesn't claim that at all and this: Freiberg, Dr. Marcos; Walls (1984). The World of Venomous Animals. New Jersey: TFH. ISBN 0876665679 (again, unverifiable and I highly doubt it claims such a bold claim unless of course it's a children's book).

So as you can see your "15 minutes to death" and your "30-45 minute average death time" are both debunked. I mean even the University of San Diego claims that symptoms don't begin to MANIFEST UNTIL 15 MINUTES LATER Check it out here. I know you hate this, but that is just too bad. I am sick of having BS and references that don't match up to the claims in the article. That's not all though, I am far from done.

"Yet, in a toxicology study, the LD50 of the Chinese-caught specimens was found to be 0.34 mg/kg" (this one has me in tears, seriously) and you reference this. That is NOT a toxicology study. Do you know what a study is? Where is the data to that study? That is a point blank statement from a book. We don't even know the source of that statement and that value. It is NOT a toxicology study and as such I am going to take it out and put back the actual studies that I had put there.

Now on to your next ridiculous statement:

"The mortality rate from a bite can statistically be 75%" and your references are "Capula, Massimo; Behler (1989). Simon & Schuster's Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of the World. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671690981."(again, unverifiable. BTW, which changed? how come you didn't list this as a source before? Can you scan this please?) and this, which does NOT claim a 75% mortality rate AT ALL.

So what now? Why did you destroy the "Venom" section of the article by taking out real studies and real references, not references that don't claim what the article claims? What gives? Why? What is your motive?

That is what I wrote back to him. Bastian (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I go ahead and revert it back to the version I had it before? The good one. Bastian (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a bit to see if Fearingpredators will self-revert, as I requested on his talk page. If he does not do so, he may be blocked again. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay will do. Even Jasper Deng thinks my version is way better than his. I don't understand his motive behind these bad sources and his claims of this super-duper snake. He's online, but he won't change it and instead pretend to be "offline" just so he doesn't have to change it. Bastian (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There are those who are sincerely offline, and others who are only pretending. So hard to tell the difference. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but with someone like Fearingpredators you never know - he's used at least 2 separate IP's that we know of and I highly suspect that he has another account, which reared it's head a few days ago when he was threatened to be blocked if he got involved in edit warring. But I'll give him the benefit of a doubt. Bastian (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear like our friend here is going to revert his changes. I mean he was online just an hour or so before you sent him that message and since it is only 11:51 pm in Hong Kong (where he is from) right now, that means it's in all likelihood that he saw the message you sent him, whether online or offline. I'd bet my bank on it. Bastian (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ed, sorry I don't mean to be a bother, but it doesn't seem like he is going to edit it. I am absolutely positive that has seen your message already because normally at this time he would be on here talking his mouth off (or in this case, typing lol). He won't resurface for at least a couple of days just so that his version, which is a horrible one, remains the one on. Do you give me permission to revert it back to what it was before or are you going to block him or what's going to happen? Bastian (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be away for several hours. You can put your version back if you are sure that it has consensus. Do you think the points in dispute have been thoroughly discussed on Talk, and that people agree with you? EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Jasper Deng has already claimed in plain words that he prefers my version. My version is well-sourced and well-written, his (Fearingpredators) first language isn't even English and his references are all bad. So I am going to revert it back. As you can see in my reply to him, I debunked his claims and their sources. He even referenced a NYTimes columnist as a "source" - I mean come on, this is a science related article. Then he falsely states that a passing statement from a 1990 book as a "toxicology study". I can assure you, this is right up my ally. I am a Medical Laboratory Technologist (bachelors degree) and I have studied toxicology well enough to know. I work in a hospital setting, if a person comes in with a snake bite and the victim nor the doctor know what species the snake was, it is up to us in the lab (we call it Clinical Chemistry in the hospital, but it is toxicology) to determine what kind of toxins are in the victims system and then pinpoint the species which bit the victim so the correct antivenom can be administered. Fearingpredators just has a hobby. That is the difference between he and I. Bastian (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wheel_warring_by_DragonflySixtyseven. Toddst1 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Despite the warning template saying "No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits... have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus", there appear to be edits that fail this requirement. Are you still following the article or should the issue by returned to AE? TFD (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD elises the extensive discussions, and the unfortunate fact that his claim of "fringe" has now been definitively been shown to apply to the position that only a few million (one editor's position) or only "tens of millions" of "excess deaths" (a nice euphemism) occurred under communist regimes. We now have a strong mainstream consensus shown (including from a PRC official) that the number of 85 - 100 million is "mainstream." cheers - but it is TFD and Paul Siebert who are "editing against talk page consensus" . And against Wikipedia policy which requires at least some sort of reliable source for their vastly lower numbers, which has thus far not been provided. Collect (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect has misrepresented what I wrote which is clear from reading the discussion page. TFD (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As Ed can certainly read the extensive discussion and see the vast array of sources presented for the larger number, and the vaccuum for the sources for the lower number, I think your charge of "misrepresentation" is almost joci causa. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I would welcome Ed Johnston reading through the talk page discussion and asking you not to misrepresent me. TFD (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be TFD trolling for blocks. I invite you to examine Paul Siebert's characterization of a "controversial" edit (citing a diff of an edit by myself) and his threats to act to ban editors (thread here). Please let me know if you believe I misconstrued his intent. I would respectfully suggest that holier-than-thou threats and trolling for blocks be dealt with as the disruptions that they are, these only take attention away from content and fuel acrimony. But perhaps I simply have not had enough coffee today owing to a plethora of meetings. Do let me know if I'm being overly sensitive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "trolling for blocks" and what that has to do with Paul Siebert's comments. TFD (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello to all the 'mass killings' editors. I love that editing restriction -- it should go on more pages. Someone has posted a draft AE request at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. It would be sensible for TLAM, Collect, Smallbones and Vecrumba to take a short break from editing the article itself. There surely must be a way to summarize the sourcing very tersely (within 500 words) to show the pros and cons of various death figures. Please try to do your best on the talk page so that outsiders can come in and figure out what it's about. If you guys can't apply yourselves to the job, unless some admin has a lot of time I guess there will be more full protection on this article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My activity hardly counted as anything other than a minor edit, for which a 1 year ban is proposed. Unfortunately, between the #'s and their representation in the article, it appears to me that one group of editors generally argues to exclude certain numbers and the other argues for a more inclusive view, properly sourced. Were it only as simply as you propose. Unfortunately, more is being written to elevate acrimony than is being written to elevate content quality. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If all parties named in the draft AE will devote themselves to having a successful talk page discussion, and do not obstruct progress, I see no reason for sanctions. If consensus is reached on the casualty totals, all will be expected to follow the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, how does one judge consensus, does it mean all unanimously agree? I see five agreeing with a particular edit (including myself) and one who disagrees drafting an AE report. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that the discussion required by Sandstein's editing restriction has taken place yet. Until then, it is premature to ask whether consensus has been reached. (Open up the box marked 'Procedural details' in the editing restriction and look at item #2). EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Examine Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#range_of_.22number_killed.22 and Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Strength_of_Fu_as_a_reliable_source inter alia, showing the specific and details discussions required by Sandstein. Note also the Wikichecker figures for number of edits by editor to this article showing Paul Siebert with 142 edits, Igny with 93, and TFD with 73 dwarfing the others involved here. And the Talk page shows Paul Siebert with 1399 edits, TFD with 1191 edits, with those two editors by themselves dominating the total discussions on the talk page over an extended period of time (well over 1/3 of all edits ever made on that talk page). Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston. Such editing restriction is equal to a permanent protection of the article because these people will never agree on anything. But I understand the reasoning behind this... It would be better to topic ban all these editors from editing the article, because that would allow others to edit. But you can not do it because most of them did nothing wrong. Of course one might topic ban at least those who do nothing but reverts in mainspace (like here), but this is something I am not qualified to argue about. Biophys (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, per your suggestion here for an RFC over two alternate lede`s I have now written one and prepared a section.[45] How long ought I wait for TFD & PS to post an alternative before beginning this RFC? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You probably should look at [46] which basically says most of this is about "agrarian reforms" and That agrarian reforms may lead to outburst of violence is a well known fact. I suspect your lede would have to say "Agrarian reforms have led to 'premature deaths' in some few communist countries either due to famine or due to people not liking reform abd killing their own livestock" or the like <g>. Collect (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverting to old versions

Would you please advise or take action about a dispute concerning these repeated reversions to an older version of articles: here, here, and here. I notice that this is approximately the second anniversary and the fourth anniversary of blockings of the editor. Esoglou (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a notice of WP:GS on the talk page. Time for some discussion, I think. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Thank you! Jpatokal (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP problem with article

Regarding this, I am not a native English speaker, how would one word it without violating BLP ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

First, find the source and see what they say exactly. Then propose on the article talk page how it should be worded. Before I removed it the material was unsourced. It didn't sound like a neutral description; it sounded like an accusation being made in Wikipedia's own voice. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

These are the sources Sri Lanka Guardian a Sri Lanka based newspaper and Asian Human Rights Comission, an accredited Asian Human Rights Organization like Amnesty International. The wording in the setence attributed it to Asian Human Rights Commission, did not make as if Wikipedia was accusing him. I am a little bit confused. Can you help and clarify this situation ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This was the sourced section that was removed as un sourced According Asian Human Rights Commission, Chandre Dharma-Wardene maintains false, defamatory and a potential death list of alleged former rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam supporters.Kanatonian (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This link is simply the reprinting in the Sri Lanka Guardian, without any comment by the reporter, of a letter written by people who describe themselves as a human rights group. To save me going through all the references, can you tell me if any reporter or commentator (who is not a party to the dispute) has presented his own conclusions about this? I see there was a kind of apology from Chandre Dharma-Wardana. Also the article I read did not give the name of the web site where the 'death list' was said to be published. The account in our article would probably need to be greatly expanded to ensure it gives a balanced report, and it is hard to know if that would be too much for a very short article on Chandre Dharma-wardana. Dharma-Wardana seems to live in Canada. Has anything been written about this in the Western press? Possibly the right thing is to open a question at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be continuing at Talk:Chandre Dharma-wardana#Moved from above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, it will be a better section of the article indeed. If you can, please keep a watch on the article. It is frequently edited by SP accounts and most probably those accounts belong to one person who is maintaining the entry against COI. But I dont have the time to pursue that anyfurther.Kanatonian (talk)

Dear Ed Johnston, after all the painstaking work we did on the talk page to achive consensus, user cossde has removed without any discussion. Can you kindly look into it ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note for User:Cossde. You might look around for a project page where you could find more people to express an opinion. I notice there is a talk page at Wikipedia talk:Sri Lankan Wikipedians' notice board though it does not seem very active. If the whole debate is just you versus User:Cossde it probably needs others to become involved. The new paragraph that you added still seems to me to have factual problems. Dharma-Wardana did not say anything about 'data-entry integrity' so I still think you have some wording that needs to be fixed. I restate my advice that you quote his apology directly since you seem to encounter problems in summarizing it correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition

Per your edit here, this article is supposed to have some level of semi-protection but IPs are somehow still able to edit it? Thought you'd want to know, Shearonink (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

I think this could be ready to go within the hour (if Paul is still awake). I will probably go to sleep myself fairly soon, so we might not cross paths. I do want to wait until the intro is done before putting in the final version of the lede. Perhaps you might want to take a look now, or try to catch any initial problems after the RfC is started. Smallbones (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Consultation

Ed, during that discussion, AGK expressed an opinion that a consultation with other administrators would be essential. Tim's response is found here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how you would edit differently in the future? It would be good to see specifics. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarity this is the discussion (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#AgadaUrbanit) that resulted in my six-month topic ban by a wide consensus of uninvolved administrators. Honestly, it was silly on my side to miss the inbound consensus and to waste the community time. Consensus is consensus is consensus and it is a corner stone of this project community decision making mechanism. As for the future I guess the main point is keeping a cool head during heated discussions, this is the advice I give to my school aged kids and I would follow it myself rigorously. Usually it is better to sleep on it, not to rush. Bottom line I would keep my participation both serious and thoughtful. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You must be aware that your ban is not from articles on Israel and the Middle East, but only from I/P topics. Can you point to any especially good work you have done on I/P topics in the past? For instance contributing sourced content, or creating new articles. If we shorten your ban based solely on assurance of better behavior, every banned person may get the same idea. You have been blocked three times for your editing on Gaza War, and you were once banned from editing it for three months, so I would need more evidence to believe that the past problems will not recur. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification on limits of my restriction, Ed. I've started Yaron Zelicha Israeli biographical stub, Missing Kissinger by Etgar Keret book appears to be notable, I'm gathering sources for Missing Kissinger new article. Generally I made about 500 contributions since the restriction was applied. Outside Middle East topic, I've started Peter Nagy (artist) and Ginger Riley Munduwalawala, improved Let's Do It, Let's Fall in Love and Slapstick (novel). AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't favor shortening your six month I/P ban to three months. If you open an appeal thread at AE, I would participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I sanctioned one of my kids couple of days ago - no TV or Internet for one week. Let her read some books for a change - I thought about the purpose of my role as a parent. Regarding my previous topic ban, there were two performing the tango. And my last week long block - Tim was kind to block those socks. The topic is an arena of gaming, most serious editors can not stand it. Jimbo says, that there is a wide consensus that Wikipedia should be neutral. Am I allowed to continue carrots vs. bananas discussion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean that thread you started at WP:AE, it made no sense to me. It sounded like word soup. If you think you have grounds for any new request, start a thread at AE, and make it clear what it's about. Specify what action you want taken or what decision you want reviewed. Requests that don't satisfy the format may be removed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if I was unclear. I am worried that such a discussion could be seen as a violation of my topic ban and get me blocked, what do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You would not be blocked just for wanting your own sanction reviewed. You should also be able to respond whenever your own edits are mentioned. Except for that, it is wise for you to avoid joining in any I/P discussions at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, would it be OK to discuss the issue in hand on Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons, specifically points discussed in Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops? Should I get through WP:AE and get myself un-banned first? Please advice. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, FYI I went ahead with WP:AE procedure. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re this comment your input is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection for Botswana Defence Force Air Wing

Ed, I note you protected Botswana Ground Force. Would you mind doing the same to Botswana Defence Force Air Wing? It's the other page that 109.64.213.91 keeps doing his disruptive editing at. I'd be grateful. Shem (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

In lieu of semiprotection, I've issued a longer block (last one was Sept. 25). EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Shem (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your Assistance Requested with UST Global

Dear Ed,

I would greatly appreciate your help again with UST Global. There is a user who wants to ignore the entries from the AAA Arbitration findings that show who started the company. Putting the entries back to the way that you originally had them, are then changed by them within 24 hours.

I appreciate greatly your intervention and a possible "Editing Block" if you feel it is waranted. I have not corrected the entries knowing that they will be erased as soon as I update the corrections.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Stevejross Stevejross (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See a note I left on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

User: Gallantmon X

Its Been 9 Months! I'm not a sockpuppet of Hunterkok! What Do I Have To Do To Prove That? 97.124.201.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC).

If you are User:Gallantmon X and you wish to appeal your block, write to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. See WP:GAB for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks For The Info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.201.14 (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

Before I was blocked I had created an article which TFD saw fit to put up for deletion, [47] I asked the admin who deleted the article to either restore it or move it to userspace, as he has not done this would you please do so? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Selket has not edited since June, so he has not been around to look into your request. I have userfied the article at User:The Last Angry Man/Hamburg Institute for Social Research. It was deleted in June as an A7 and in my opinion it needs some work before it is restored to main space. Happy editing! EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

See [48] 18:25 today, which reverted edits made at 17:50 yesterday and which was not contiguous with [49] at 3:07 (described specifically as a revert) It would appear to be 2RR in 14 1/2 hours, which might not precisely be in accord with the specific 1RR restriction you had imposed. I rather think the gaming going on is going to be a major problem unless it is noted shortly. Unless, of course, after 24 hours, an edit is not considered a revert? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The second diff does not appear to be a revert, just a rejigging of the lede. Collect seems currently to be targeting User:Paul Siebert. On Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes Collect suggested bringing in Slrubenstein because Collect thought edits to that page by Paul Siebert might involve an issue related to antisemitism. He posted on User talk:Slrubenstein [50] and a discussion continued there and on User talk:Collect, with Slrubenstein not agreeing with Collect's personal interpretation of Paul Siebert's comments to an IP, who had made disruptive edits. This kind of reporting away from public noticeboards without due notification seems unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not "targeting" anyone - the "rejigging" of the lede is what exactly led to the last problems on that article -- but I do not recall seeing you there at all? Do you just have this page watchlisted? As for Slrubenstein, I asked a question there which he provided a thoughtful answer for - and you appeared there as well. And at the talk page on the LaRouche movement as well. And at BLP/N. And Orson Scott Card. All inside a month. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Slrubenstein's talk page has been on my watchlist for several years. So are WP:BLPN and Communist terrorism, which I listed for full protection in November 2010 [51] because of violent oscillations in the article (an article I watch but do not edit). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This sort of following to complain about editors outside one's topic area of interest by Mathsci is what is not helpful. (BTW Mathsci trucked out EEML conspiracy theories at the A&I Race and Intelligence arbitration proceedings for no reason. When there's nothing to see, we see what we want to see.) Националист-патриот ►TALK 22:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How so? I comment on all sorts of articles over quite a wide range. In general I prefer now not to edit any kind of controversial article. I am not responsible for problems with Collect's editing. What is A&I? Are you referring to some grudge of yours from the distant past? Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that then - I just was a tad astonished that since we have essentially no interests in common that you would run across me quite this often. (We "intersect" on a grand total of seven articles out of about two thousand I have watchlisted now). Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I made several comments in November 2010 on a request at WP:AE on exactly the same article. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#Collect Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Which explains one out of six I think -- amazing how coincidences pile up, isn't it? Collect (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, typo, R&I, corrected. Националист-патриот ►TALK 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mathsci, that was (my response, quoting you)... "WTF?
I am totally gobsmacked (not the first time) by Mathsci's "Involved participants under EE restrictions Vecrumba and more recently Biophys have started editing these articles or their talk pages well after the ArbCom case started; both started editing after having been placed under ArbCom restrictions in EE related matters. Vecrumba has stated that he has had a "life interest" in the subject."
I've "stated" I have an interest? That is innuendo that I'm lying, plain and simple. Mathsci also suggests that Biophys (who is a scientist) couldn't possibly have a legitimate interest in the subject after my happening to mention it as a life-long subject of interest for myself; rather, Mathsci would contend Biophys is joining me in a mini-EEML cabal to assault the Race and intelligence article. This sort of underhanded personal attack introduced as "evidence" proves the "evidence is the evidence." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)"

Vecrumba is unearthing edits/disputes that occurred during the ArbCom case WP:ARBR&I. That case was closed 13 months ago and all sanctions on me were lifted over 9 months ago. Closure of the case means that participants do not get to redebate it afterwards (if in doubt Vecrumba could ask an arbitrator like Newyorkbrad). None of this is connected in any way at all with the points I was making about Collect and Paul Siebert. Mathsci (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Past conflict is the best predictor of future conflict, that is all I am stating—how quickly you forget your callous disregard for good manners in your treatment of editors with whom you disagree. I only suggest introspection to insure your primary motivation in appearing here is content. Националист-патриот ►TALK 14:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

More hyperbolic rhetoric about articles or talk pages that I don't edit and where I have expressed no point of view on wikipedia. It's on my watchlist like Southern Adventist University, which also became a contentious article. I am not interested in either Seventh Day Adventism (I unearthed two images of the Missionary College) or Communism. Please refrain from making groundless personal attacks. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

SPI report about Skipsievert

You have been mentioned in a report at WP:SPI. You may wish to have a look and comment there.[52] LK (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I have opened a discussion on Wp:ANI about problematic edits of User:The Last Angry Man. In the report I mentioned advice given by you. Mathsci (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Romanski1996 reported by User:Jingiby

The editor filed this at AN3 and it was acted on there
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Page: Georgi Bogdanov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Romanski1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1st revert: [53] 10:23, 3 October 2011, (removes sourced piece of text - about Bulgarian self-identification of this man, what sources say) 2nd revert: [54] 18:36, 3 October 2011, (removal of the same text) 3rd revert: [55] 07:05, 4 October 2011, (revert of what the sources says, removal of sources) 4th revert: [56] 07:54, 4 October 2011, (last change, removal of sources and revert of ethnic self-identification. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57] (last sentence, I tell him to stop reverting sourced information). Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58] This User has the same editing-policy in other articles too, as for example: Marko Boshnakov, Dzole Stojchev and Katerina Trajkova Nurdzhieva Jingby (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that your report about me was oppressive

Principality of Hungary. This issue was taken to ANI, but I am not aware of any result. See archives 719, 721 and 723
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear colegue, you warned me [59] that my edits in the article Principality of Hungary were motivated by nationalism and than you reported it to the page of Digwuren [60]. Firstly Iam not nationalist. Iam not emotionaly involved in this topic - Iam not Hungarian. Iam involved scholarly - I wish to make a better article and wikipedia. Iam not against the existence of the article about some kind of Hungarian early polity in 10th century. All my edits were made in good faith, I always used arguments and I communicated with User:Fakirbakir. He broken rule about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle and reported me at ANI (according to him were my reverts and nomination of the page for deletion personal attacks) but administrators did not agree with him. On the other hand he told that Iam a nationalist [61] - I read a plenty of Hungarian and English sources. I broken 3RR and I was blocked for a week - my mistake, I will not to do it more, it was a mistake. Please familiarize yourself with my objective reflections about the article "Principality of Hungary" ([62]) and I hope you will consider your apology to me and deletion of my report from the Digwurens page. All good. --Samofi (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I gave you a WP:DIGWUREN notice after you'd already been warned many times by others. The case presented at the 3RR noticeboard in September was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive169#User:Samofi reported by Nmate (talk) (Result: 1 week). Any admin who reviews that case and then looks at all the warnings on your talk page will most likely form an opinion that the DIGWUREN notice was justified. You are not yet under a topic ban from Eastern Europe, and to avoid getting into more restrictions, I advise you to use the article talk pages. Before making any significant changes, you should wait until you can persuade others to support your view. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Okay, but look to my situation. Iam presenting the main stream of the historians - I used talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary) and I used also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard for a 2 times. But nobody is interesting about this topic except User:Fakirbakir - creator and other users from Hungary, User:Koertefa and User:Nmate. They are supporters of patriotic Hungarian stream of historians (around Kristo Gyula - its minority opinion). My advices were ignored and user Fakirbakir started to canvassing other users in Hungarian pages, for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Hungary#Principality_of_Hungary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koertefa&diff=448010287&oldid=448001698 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borsoka&diff=prev&oldid=449539896 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hobartimus&diff=prev&oldid=447545513 but it was a much more canvassing. This is no nationalism? He contancts users based on their ethnicity and he is trying to join Hungarian users against other users. My activity was not motivated by nationalism. Btw User:Nmate was under restriction because of his nationalism in 2008. Now he is banned because of wikistalking. He was writing at your talkpage a time ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=prev&oldid=381105163 and he often contacts admins and canvass against other users (like in the my case of my last ban because of 3RR - he influenced user Kuru): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuru&diff=prev&oldid=452664775 but also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuru&diff=prev&oldid=419488007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones&diff=prev&oldid=419483420 I broken rule, it was mistake I apologized and it was not motivated by nationalism. Say me which my edit was motivated by my nationalism last year. You should say sorry to me and repair your report. --Samofi (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC) You are appealing an admin decision using a lot of content arguments. This is a guarantee you are on the wrong track. Find some people who work on these topics who you consider well-informed. Then try out your content arguments on them and see if you can persuade them. (My fear is that there are no other editors who work on Eastern Europe you consider well-informed). EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC) If I will inform users about topic "Principality of Hungary" discussing in the "no original research noticeboard" it will not consider as canvassing? --Samofi (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Yes It can be considered as canvassing when you try to ask help here (and inform users) instead of proper ways. There is an 'official' way, the Dispute resolution process. WP:DR Fakirbakir (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC) There was a 'state', a pagan state. We can call it 'Principality of Hungary' or 'Duchy of Hungary' etc as we know it from !latter! sources. The contemporary name of the state was Tourkia or Western Tourkia by Byzantine sources. The main problem is User Samofi does not like the title 'Principality of Hungary'. Now, It is clearly a content dispute. However User:Samofi continues to blame others and thinks his editing behavior is justified.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC) "Patriotic Hungarian stream around Gyula Kristó". Gyula Kristó was an academic. An expert about Migration Period, Early Middle ages...................Fakirbakir (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC) "It is minority opinion". It is a biased statement.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Shapley–Folkman lemma at FAC

Hi Ed! I just wanted to write a personal alert that I had nominated the article for FA status.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Ed!

The article has no opposes and three formidable supports, FA juggernaut Malleus Fatuorum and two experienced economists & Wikipedians (Protonk and Volunteer Marek). Protonk suggested that I renew my requests for volunteer reviewers.

The article has a section on probability and measure theory that may especially interest you.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

More Esoglou edit warring

Why is Esoglou allowed to edit war on the Ecumenical councils article and also on the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff article? He put a citation request in on my contribution that there were councils before the Ecumenical councils.[63] THATS after I listed the actual councils and even wikilinked to the wiki articles and on some of those councils and then even included dates as well. So now why would I have to source that World War I happened before World War II? Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Esoglou and Richard do this as a means to frustrate contributors. God knows Esoglou can continue and if he messes up it's oops sorry get over it but I get ANI, blocked or banned . Esoglou acts incompetent when caught violating rules and edit warring everyone should just get over it. At what point does this person's behavior and incompetence finally get called into check or are you going to continue to blame the growing list of editors that this person has racked up, frustrates and continue to allow them to edit war with their buddies against positions and facts that do not put their POV in a good light. With all the complains how is it that it is still everyone but Esoglou's fault? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Now Esoglou has opened a complaint on editor Montalban [64] More of Esoglou can do what he wants and he's just a little dense is why he messes up [65] but God help you if you do, cause Esoglou is only selectively dense and he can figure out how to run people off of Wikipedia even though edit restrictions are lost on ol Esoglou. How many editor are you guys going to let him run off, or do this too? Let me guess though this is all me, right. LoveMonkey (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Taking a dispute to WP:DRN is actually a good idea. Regarding Esoglou's edits at Ecumenical council, one option is to consider that *both* you and Esoglou are banned from writing about the Councils which predate the split between the eastern and the western churches. If you want the ban to be interpreted that way, it might be logical. Another option is that both of you can continue to edit, but you must get consensus on talk before changing any material about those Councils which predate the split. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed, another way to interpret the edit restriction is that both Esoglou and LoveMonkey can edit points-of-fact regarding the eastern and western churches. That is, if the text in question is about a historical fact such as "who presided over the First Council of Ephesus", either of the two editors can edits. However, as soon as the text crosses over from factual assertions to descriptions of theological positions, the edit restriction comes into force. Interpreted this way, the edit restriction would allow either editor to edit the assertions about Candidian being sent to preside over the Council of Ephesus or about Peter Olivi being the first to propose the doctrine of papal infallibility. However, Esoglou would not be able to edit the sentence that asserts why the Orthodox accept the Council of Ephesus as ecumenical. He would also have to tread lightly when challenging a point-of-fact about a Roman Catholic pope (John XXII) rejecting the assertion of papal infallibility proposed by a Roman Catholic priest (Peter Olivi) when that point-of-fact is made in the middle of a section titled "Eastern Orthodox objections to the doctrine of papal infallibility". I recognize that this is a messy criterion but it's the fairest one I can think of at the moment. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to treat LoveMonkey's complaints as what they are and as his expressions show them to be. Just because he chooses to intervene in an already existing discussion in which I am involved is no reason for suddenly banning me from that discussion. As for LoveMonkey's objection to my taking the dispute with Montalban to the noticeboard, surely it was high time to do so when discussion on the talk page had failed to stop an editor from persistently presenting a statement of his as fact by a) deleting references to reliable sources that disagreed with it, and b) misrepresenting as support for his statement a source that explicitly disagreed with it. Esoglou (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Richard's point is already covered in the exclusion of the Church's "teaching and practice". Esoglou (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, as per your previous involvement, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:AWB notes

Just to let you know where I'm getting these numbers, from the user edit count ex.. User edit count from there go to home then in the right-hand sidebar Automated edits it's from there I use the AWB stat's, as you see you have 26. Thanx for the nod, I was wondering if the stats help and I was under the impression I was accurate. Mlpearc powwow 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

More accurately, I have *no* edits under AWB. See this toolserver link. But it's fun to see the different ways one may try to find the answer. (AWB is also a company in Australia, and one time I referred to that AWB in the edit summary). One edit I can't explain. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

203.129.23.146

I think it's time to harden (by either talk page access removal and/or block extension) the block for this IP. See this, this, and this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If he's only abusing admins as a group, let him vent. Since he won't file a proper unblock template, most likely he'll get no further response (unless you provide it). He's also making it less likely he'll ever be unblocked. I suggest you unwatch his page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and neither were any other of the people he was making personal attacks on (including me). See Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, tpa rmvd by another admin.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)