User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
My ban
Where can I appel to this ban?Posse72 (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- At WP:AE, see the large box at top of the page, entitled 'How to File a Request'. Follow the instructions under 'Appeals.' I will listen to appeals myself from any editor who has made a serious effort to address the problem. The ban on editing Battle of Tali-Ihantala has been logged under WP:DIGWUREN#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
New Corticopia account
Hello Ed. Sadly, I just have found another recently created account of Corticopia. The name is Superluminary. I'll tell you how I found this out.
1. A "new user" replaced a map in the article Latin Americans See difference, which was really wierd because the map depicted regions of Latin America in a section about it! (Then I realized the "user" just didn't like the idea that Mexico IS part of North America, a Corticopia bias)
2. I went to the contribution list of that "new user". Found he only edited the article Latin Americans and participated in the talk page of European Union.
3. Reading carefully the disussion in which this "new user" participated, I just found the IP Corticopia was using 76.66.124.5 weeks ago [1] [2] He first edited the article European Union from that IP (reverting it several times), and then discussed in the talk page.
4. Corticopia's IP was challenged to register by one of the respected users to be taken seriously and HE DID, as he admits here (check the last part of his comment) [3]. After registering he went to the article Latin Americans and erased the map that I was talking about. (My guess is that he thought he wouldn't be discovered to be Corticopia)
He is, again, disrupting, spreading bias and of course, trying to avoid scrutinity and blocks not only in Mexico, Latin American-related articles, but also in European articles. He reverted so many times a map in European Union with his anonymous IP.
AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's another account I'm pretty sure was Corticopia, but I did not have the evidence - yet - to prove it. That's User:Highvale. In my experience, he was just making small changes such as moving pictures around in different articles, to create a "background" and give the false idea of a real comitted user.
- He has done that before. However! today I found that Corticopia's IP 76.66.124.5 and 216.234.60.106 edited in the same article "Highvale" did. Interesting [4] [5]
- We can only wait to see his behaviour, what articles he actually edit and what kind of "changes" he wants to introduce. I'm pretty sure he's gonna add the traditional Corticopia's bias, because as I said I think he is the same. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see these edits as being blatant enough to take any action on. The articles such as European Union (where you believe he is editing) are heavily-watched articles and any contributions he makes which are too eccentric will most likely be reverted. I don't see any edit wars that are still going on. In the discussion at Talk:European Union Superluminary *does* seem to be admitting that the 76.66 IP is his own, and that IP geolocates to Corticopia's usual domain. If Superluminary chooses to continue Corticopia's multi-year battle on the Latin American articles a block may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I only wanted to expose his new account just in case he continues his disruptive behaviour. Thanks for reading! AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see these edits as being blatant enough to take any action on. The articles such as European Union (where you believe he is editing) are heavily-watched articles and any contributions he makes which are too eccentric will most likely be reverted. I don't see any edit wars that are still going on. In the discussion at Talk:European Union Superluminary *does* seem to be admitting that the 76.66 IP is his own, and that IP geolocates to Corticopia's usual domain. If Superluminary chooses to continue Corticopia's multi-year battle on the Latin American articles a block may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Edjohnston. Thank you for telling me i have been reported at WP:ANI, i didn't know. I am not abusing accounts, that was ages ago and they were used to create new articles, revert vandalism and to detect plagiarisms. These accounts are all visible at my es:wiki user page so everyone is aware about them. As i was told in es:wiki before getting banned, i asked for a mediation following the instructions provided in Third opinion. In the discussion of choripán, i said i was giving up and so has been skiped the dispute template of the article by the other party without my intromission. In this discussion i have been told that i need to provide sources for what i am claiming and that is what i did. My last message in that discussion provides a source from a graduate claiming that choripán is a neologism used in argentina that was skiped at es:wiki claiming that a filologist is not a gastronomy authority but i dont know who is open microphone stating that choripan is an argentinian invention. Anyway i said i gave up and now i am concentrating in alfajor (wasting hours in search of good references) in where the person that is reporting me here, the same one that has reported me 4 times at es:wiki during the dispute, claims that i am not using good references. I have asked him to tell me which references are not good so i can fix them, but i get no reply. The dispute in alfajor is the exact of choripan but the other way round. In choripán i tried to include that this sandwich is eaten as well in spain with other name but they wouldnt let me, ok, sources say its an argentinian invention and its a different chorizo, but so are argentinian alfajores and spanish and now this person is trying his best to stop me from splitting alfajor into different articles when theres absolutely no comparison between these two products. You say that there is something behind this complaint and i think you are right. Yours sincerely. Rafax (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Second Amendment article
I am a patient guy and can easily wait a month. Indeed we are already coming off of a month of full protection, for what essentially was a three way dispute between myself, AnonIP and User:Hauskalainen who has been trying to insert some personal research of his into the English history section coupled with removal of some well sourced material because he calls it "myth"[6] without pointing to sources of this opinion. I would be more comfortable if Hauskalainen was also encouraged to take a month off. (Also, it would be nice if these two other editors would change their minds and agree to participate in dispute resolution[7] during this month so that when we return we can find an agreement.)
Explaining my long term presence in this article: I have for a long time been concerned with the issue of systemic editor bias at Wikipedia and a member of the WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. For this reason I became interested in the effects of systemic editor bias on articles of interest to certain political groups, and began to focus on the effect of gun rights political activism on Wikipedia. I think if you look fairly at the gun related articles in Wikipedia you can confirm that there is a disproportionate number of editors who edit based on personal political viewpoint. I consistently am arguing that we stick to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and meticulously avoid personal political viewpoint. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- RE allegations that I have been in violation of 3rr, I deny it and any check will show that I have not had any instances where I changed or reverted material 4 or more times in any 24 period. Freezing the article can actually be a reward to Salty as with the constant freezes he has already gotten, the article has not been updated to reflect judicial ruling on Heller and McDonald. Both are anti-gun control and Salty is rabidly pro-gun control.
- The traditional penalty for a freeze on the person guilty of a 3rr violation seems appropriate, whatever the time period of that freeze.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not 100% clear that Salty has made four reverts in 24 hours. My concern with Salty is more that he is dominating the article by editing so frequently. He should reduce his frequency to allow others to participate. If you and Salty would both agree to take a holiday for a certain period, it would be worth considering. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ref[8]. I have taken up your advice to reduce the frequency of my edits. Also, I have increased my attention to collaboration and discussion on the talk page. I agree it is important to work out a consensus prior to inserting revised text into the article. The problem I have seen is that other editors persist in the practice of just dropping their changes into the article, with zero discussion on the talk page. Just in the last four days, see[9], [10], [11], [12] and [13]. None of these edits were preceded by any discussion on the article page. All of these edits resulted in POV shifts, or were unsourced original research, or both. I am at a loss here, because I don't know what the best option is at this point. Realistically, I am faced with a constant stream of editors who do not choose to talk first on the talk page, I just sit and watch these WP:V WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problems accumulate within the article. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not 100% clear that Salty has made four reverts in 24 hours. My concern with Salty is more that he is dominating the article by editing so frequently. He should reduce his frequency to allow others to participate. If you and Salty would both agree to take a holiday for a certain period, it would be worth considering. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Belated thanks
..for your guidance here [14] -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: BrianBeahr
SPI case
Since you mentioned in here that you are looking over the SPI report, I thought to let you know that he is again using another IP address (which also comes exactly from the same server in Islamabad, Pakistan) and is trying to report me for further vandalism and 3RR violations. For example in here. His request was turned down, and I added this info in the SPI case in here. Please see User_talk:Ariana310#3rr for further details. Thanks. Ariana (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Genizaro article
Thank you for your help. Lechonero (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:AN3#User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry reported by User:Gonads3 (Result: Warned)
Hello. Would it be possible to have this warning retracted? It appears that the user in question has an issue editing the talk pages of semi-protected articles and therefore could not enter into the discussion. I have offered to copy over any text that they wish to add to the discussion. I am seeking clarity over where to raise this bug. I also believe that both parties acted in good faith, but became clouded by this confusion. I appreciate any action you can bring. Thank you. gonads3 22:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I stand by the warning, since Mancini's Lasagne has not seemed very willing to negotiate up til now. As to Talk:Manchester City F.C., that *talk* page is not protected. As you can see, IPs have previously left comments on talk, so you don't need to be autoconfirmed to leave comments. It is rare for article talk pages to have any kind of protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, I don't disagree with the second part of your refusal justification (and I told gonads exactly the same thing myself) but how can you possibly justify saying that I have "not seemed very willing to negotiate up til now." My contribution to the discussion in question was an order of magnitude greater than his. Have you read any of this or this? Perhaps you might consider modifying that remark (and possibly also retracting your warning) after doing so. If you want to reference just the Reader's Digest version first then read the "Edit Wars" and "Fresh Start" sections in the first linked page, and only the rest if you still want more background to what really transpired. Thanks. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you believe there is a deadlock with the other editors, try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, I don't disagree with the second part of your refusal justification (and I told gonads exactly the same thing myself) but how can you possibly justify saying that I have "not seemed very willing to negotiate up til now." My contribution to the discussion in question was an order of magnitude greater than his. Have you read any of this or this? Perhaps you might consider modifying that remark (and possibly also retracting your warning) after doing so. If you want to reference just the Reader's Digest version first then read the "Edit Wars" and "Fresh Start" sections in the first linked page, and only the rest if you still want more background to what really transpired. Thanks. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Christopher Carrie
For reference, I agree with you except as to the focus of any potential discussion of the case. See this and this and this for the overall context that the world puts these several cases in. It's not really biography, or even scandal. It's subtle changes to English defamation law. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Block of Arlen22
I would like to contest my 48 hour block, I cannot find the request and I did not violate the 3RR rule. You could hardly call it edit warring either. Arlen22 (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found the request. The one diff was a mix-up, not a regular revert. Is there a way to strike the block from my logs? Arlen22 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The report was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive136#User:Arlen22 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 48h). Generally, blocks can't be removed from logs. (Admins have no button to do that). Prior to the block, your user talk page showed five different editors who were opposed to the renaming you were trying to do. Surely this would be a hint for you to slow down and wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Genizaro protection
Dear Mr. Johnston, I would like you to reconsider the freezing of the page, "Genizaro" A couple of weeks ago a user named Lechonero removed the word "Indian" from an articla about "American Indian Slaves." just recently he edited the article again and then had you freeze it just after his edits. The edits that he made render the article inaccurate.
For example in the indroductory sentence Lechonero wrote:
Genízaros were groups from various tribes in New Mexico who were enslaved as house servants, sheepherders, and in other capacities in Spanish, Mexican, and American households in the Southwest, well into the 1880s.[3]
Sir, Genizaros were individuals who were sold into slavery not groups. Moreover, they came from tribes as far away as the Mississipi valley. New Mexico did not exist at the time. It became a state in 1913, long after slavery had ended. Please reconsider the freeze or at least freeze it as it had been for the last several years.
thank you for your consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumanche (talk • contribs)
- Moved the above comment here from my User page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- This question is about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Please block Cumanche for violating WP:OWN and for WP:NOT on the Genizaro article. Generally, articles are protected in whatever version the admin finds them in. If you think the article should be changed, please get consensus for what you have in mind. A posting at WP:3O is one way to bring in a third party. See also the ideas listed in WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
User:76.200.100.0/22
Would you mind reblocking this range? He came back.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Also a couple of weeks ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have reblocked for another six months. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
IP Freely
Hey, Ed! I recently noticed that a certain "someone" has been posting "A-S-S-H-O-L-E" to a number of user pages, and I have reverted a few, including the one on your page. Both 72.82.11.120 and 71.161.228.4 seem to be in Rhode Island - not a big place. Any hunches who this might be? I'd love to look into it - e-mail me if you wish. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- If this is an IP from Rhode Island who is hostile to both me and 2over0, it is most likely User:Caleb Murdock. He is indignant that the Seth Material article was taken away from his preferred version, which a number of people felt was not neutral. It does not appear that a rangeblock would do much good; we need to hope that he gets bored with vandalism eventually. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
BrianBeahr - block evasion again
Thank you for also blocking the IP address 210.50.228.4. used by the indefinitely blocked editor BrianBeahr on the St Kilda Football Club article. He is at it again using another IP address - this time it is 201.50.228.5. As it is obviously him, I have reverted his recent edits on this article. As I cannot block this IP address I am notifying you about this as you may want to also block this address . Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I semiprotected the article and created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BrianBeahr. Let me know if you see any further issues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. It looks probable, however, that he has already started a new account with the user name of Sainterman for editing St Kilda Football Club-related articles - such as List of St Kilda Football Club coaches. Apart from this account being brand new and only editing some of the same articles, BrianBeahr's user name on an official St Kilda FC supporter site was BrianSainterman ( from which he was also eventually blocked for disruptive behaviour ). Over to you! Afterwriting (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
SPI
This fellow ZjarriRrethues reminds me very much of Sarandioti. SPI is here [15]. Cheers,Athenean (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Question about Crunchyking's block
Crunchyking appears to be a vandalism only account (since all his edits have been vandalism). I'm not the admin here, but I'm curious why his block is only 48 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- You convinced me -- I changed the block to indef. The report at AIV did not say it was a vandal-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Mention
Howdy. Just an FYI I've mentioned you in passing [16] thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Please assist - some of the usual suspects attacking this page are beginning their usual assault. Can you add the protected icon ? Why cant ppl make edits and discussions on page before slander ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs)
- I moved this report to bottom of page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your actions suggest you are not very familiar with Wikipedia. If you can't figure out how to add new comments on people's talk pages, and sign your comments, you will have trouble winning any support for your cause. One of your recent edits suggests that you may have been engaging in promotional editing. Consider opening up a report at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, where 5W has been discussed in the past, if you want to find people willing to study the issue and respond to your concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you
It seems the autoblock is over. I thought it wouldn't work, so I decided to ask for an unblock. Thanks for noticing my request. Tibullus (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: User:Guinea pig warrior
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that.--ETLamborghini (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your help. 660gd4qo (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The Tolkien family fuss
Isn't it funny how that old crew of Tolkien vs Carrie posters is suddenly reunited over here? I find the last post there especially interesting with regards to certain wiki usernames. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Maggie Gallagher pending changes trial
The article about Maggie Gallagher is part of the Help:Pending changes trial. So far, all of the many attempts at vandalism have been reverted while every non-editor (casual viewers of Wikipedia) saw any of the vandalism. The pending changes feature is designed to replace the need for article protection. I expect the request from WP:RFPP came from someone unfamiliar with the new ability. If you don't mind, can we remove semi-protection from the article? —EncMstr (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some recent event must have caused a big upsurge in vandalism of this article. Starting on 5 August there are as many as 12 vandal edits per day, all of which need to be manually reverted by individuals. Under semiprotection, this would not be needed. What would you think of waiting for a week or two before taking off the semiprotection? EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's okay by me, I guess. There seem to be many editors ready to revert vandalism, and the response time is usually very good, less than a couple minutes. During that time, pending changes is doing its job preventing vandalism being visible externally.
- On one hand, pending changes results in consumption of vandal fighting resources; on the other hand, this sort of article is exactly what pending changes is intended to protect and what the trial ought to be evaluating. I guess one finding is that it consumes more anti-vandal time. Thanks, —EncMstr (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Wtshymanski
Looks like your comments to User talk:Wtshymanski were erased as well. Oh well for being taken seriously. . . ----moreno oso (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit warning
Hello, Did you post your edit warning to user Noleander as well? and why not?Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC).
- He's been participating at WP:ANI#Need help with non-native-English-speaking editor, so I don't think he needs a warning. I urge you to join that discussion and comment on the points he is making there. If we hear only one side of the dispute, people may assume that there is no case for your side. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Seth Material
Hey, Ed! I recently noticed that a certain "someone" has been posting "A-S-S-H-O-L-E" to a number of user pages, and I have reverted a few, including the one on your page. Both 72.82.11.120 and 71.161.228.4 seem to be in Rhode Island - not a big place. Any hunches who this might be? I'd love to look into it - e-mail me if you wish. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- If this is an IP from Rhode Island who is hostile to both me and 2over0, it is most likely User:Caleb Murdock. He is indignant that the Seth Material article was taken away from his preferred version, which a number of people felt was not neutral. It does not appear that a rangeblock would do much good; we need to hope that he gets bored with vandalism eventually. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hostile to you, 2over0, Verbal, Guyonthesubway, Bongwarrior... etc. I tagged the IP's mentioned above, plus a few that were missed. I'm pretty sure there will be more... Doc9871 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Seth Material article was perfectly neutral. It simply laid out the tenets of the material in a logical way, which is what people would want to read if they were looking for the article. The bias was on the part of the editors who attacked it: Verbal and Brangifer, two self-appointed censors who are trying to shape the encyclopedia to their beliefs. Your role is that you back up the self-appointed censors (in my opinion, vandals who work from within). It doesn't seem to matter to you that Wikipedia is crawling with censors, deletionists and other control freaks who can't stand to see a bit of information in the encyclopedia that they don't like.
- You may think that it's pathetic that my anger keeps bringing me back to harass you, but what is more pathetic is to spend 8 hours a days editing Wikipedia, especially when your efforts do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Editors like Verbal and Brangifer are bad enough, but the people who are really doing the damage are the administrators who facilitate their destructive activity. Your whole involvement with Wikipedia is a waste of time and effort.--Caleb Murdock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.156.119 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I really wish I understood why you are so dense that you can't see what is happening. New editors come to Wikipedia to share their knowledge on the subjects that interest them, only to find themselves in pitched battles with editors who are intent on erasing what they have written. The attackers are always Wikipedia addicts who, pathetically, have nothing to do but spend hours on the site each day. Having spent so much time on the site, they invariably believe that their views are more important than other editors' views. And since they know the rules so well, they always win their battles. The knowledgeable editors get kicked off by idiots like you, and the articles get cut down or deleted, and the encyclopedia suffers.
- Verbal is a conservative Christian who feels threatened by alternative religious theories, and who seems to think that a good article is the size of a homeopathy treatment (except for the articles he likes, of course). Brangifer is an atheist who also feels threatened by emergent religious theories. These are not unbiased individuals. Yet because you are only focused on disciplining editors who haven't learned how to kiss ass, you keep backing them up. THEY ARE NOT DOING ANY GOOD FOR THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA. YOU ARE NOT DOING ANY GOOD FOR THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA. BY BACKING UP EDITORS LIKE THAT, YOU ARE HURTING THE ENCYCLOPEDIA.
- You had better protect your page again, because you will no longer be able to block my posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.156.194 (talk) 5:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
How to file a CheckUser request? Can you help?
Ok. I've discovered YET another Corticopia account. Edit pattern consistent (including POV pushing in topics about Turkey[17], Georgia, Cyprus [18], Mexico[19], Central America and "the Americas" in general). Recent creation within the last 9 months, which suggest that this account has been used along with others (such as Superluminary, his most recent registered account).
I think that filing a CheckUser would be the best and I think you can help since you're more experiencied dealing with this complex cases. I have all the IPs he's been recently using (the ones I've discovered so far) such as 76.68.80.199 which already engaged in edit wars. The most indcredibly hypocritical behaviour is that in his talk page he tells another administrator that he "didn't know about leaving references" that he is still new. Incredible!
He has not created a visible problem such an edit war (yet) in the articles I edit, so probably I'll keep an eye on it. Or what do you think? He has already introduced a false statement here [20]. And is adding deliberately false information, just waiting for somebody to notice it for correction [21]. Also he's reverting my edits, deleting a map of plate tectonics (and the section is talking about plate tectonics!) just because that will clarify his lies. [22]
Thanks for your answers in advance. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 15:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok Ed, now I think the CheckUser is a must. That new account of his has been already involved in edit warring in at least 2 different articles (check his talk page), gave false statements to an administrator by saying he's "new and still learning" which clearly is playing the system. All this along with the systemic bias and edit pattern... AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you make a list of all the registered accounts and all the IPs you want to be included in an SPI report. So far there is no official WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Corticopia so one should eventually be made. Whoever submits this report should collect all the past ANIs about Corticopia, since that would provide the evidence of abuse that is needed to justify a checkuser. A list should be made of all the accounts that were blocked in the past as Corticopia. He is also mentioned in my user talk archives, and all those references should be found to see if they are relevant. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think I have all the requiered information, past accounts, IPs... I have opened a talk in the ANI [23]. Please comment there. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you make a list of all the registered accounts and all the IPs you want to be included in an SPI report. So far there is no official WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Corticopia so one should eventually be made. Whoever submits this report should collect all the past ANIs about Corticopia, since that would provide the evidence of abuse that is needed to justify a checkuser. A list should be made of all the accounts that were blocked in the past as Corticopia. He is also mentioned in my user talk archives, and all those references should be found to see if they are relevant. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ed. I have also tagged other two IP with the appropiate template since they are from the same range, city and ISP as the one IP you already blocked. Please check edit pattern (Europe, Georgia), because it is consistent. You blocked 76.66.124.5 and I've already tagged IP 76.66.127.109[24] and IP 76.68.80.199[25]. Please check contributions log. I think it is obvious it is the same and I believe those should be blocked aswell. I also don't understand why you didn't block user Superluminary since he admited to be IP 76.66.124.5 well thank you very much for helping in this complex situation. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- You've performed a service by collecting the data. I do join you in suspecting the two additional 76.66.* IPs as being Corticopia. Perhaps a stronger case could be made if someone would collect instances of the POV 'Georgia is not in Europe' and show more than one sock expressing that opinion. A complete search of Georgia (country) might well show participation by more than one Corticopia sock. Blocking IPs with a short edit history is not so easy if they have not done very much so far that is distinctive. Of course, most of his socks do earn warnings on their talk page very soon after their first appearance. Usually, every sock gets involved in reverting. This helps to pick them out of the crowd in cases where multiple IPs work on an article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Other than at Talk:Georgia, the only use on WP of the phrase "Georgia is not in Europe" comes at this edit. Off-wiki, it comes up here, here and here.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking on this. The history of Georgia (country) shows Corticopia disputing with User:Sosomk at Georgia (country) back on 20:37, 20 May 2007. Corticopia wanted 'a country in the Caucasus' to become 'a Eurasian country in the Caucasus.' though he also made other changes. Corti. made multiple reverts against Sosomk. One of the 76.66.* IPs who is recently active makes practically the same edit in July 2010, changing 'Europe' to 'Eurasia' in that article. This is getting close to genuine sock evidence. See also an edit by the 76.68 IP to the same article, making Europe into Eurasia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Other than at Talk:Georgia, the only use on WP of the phrase "Georgia is not in Europe" comes at this edit. Off-wiki, it comes up here, here and here.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this can help to establish User:Chipmunkdavis as another sock of Corticopia. Edit pattern is consistent, but this may be more interesting [26], he created a new article named "List of Eurasian countries and territories". Also check this edit of Corticopia in the article Cyprus [27] (he's known for this POV about Cyprus and Georgia) and this edit of Chipmunkdavis[28] adding a cite to note that North Cyprus is not in Europe. Also Corticopia favored the term "Australia or Australasia" instead of Oceania in the article Continent [29] and Chipmunkdavis does the same [30]. I think it is clear now that they are the same.
Ed, I was wondering if it was ok to call him Corticopia because he has used several accounts before that, and trying to link him with that one sometimes might be difficult because he stopped using that sockpuppet master account. Remember he abandoned that account and started editing anonymously. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- The age of the master account should not prevent us from using the name 'Corticopia' for the sock case. Most of the inference is by behavior; I doubt that checkuser could do much. Corticopia has never come forward to deny a connection to these other accounts. It seems to me that he declared in summer 2008 that he would no longer use his main account and would only sock from then on. (I don't have a link to his statement, though). EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, please read this carefully. A user by the name User:Mclay1 is currently "supporting" any change made by Chipmunkdavis, or vice-versa. That account has been focused in making minor changes about the band The Beatles. Very suspiciously until recently (May 2010) he started editing in the same articles Chipmunkdavis actively is, as well as some minor edits to articles that Corticopia account used to edit. Both seem to be online around the same time of the day.
- Mclay1 is just like Chipmunkdavis, until recently, editing in the articles: List of European countries, List of Asian countries, List of Oceanian countries... the same articles Chipmunkdavis was introducing changes to. Check their contribution list and you'll see. Mclay1 also is "interested" in Turkey[31], Cyprus[32] and Eurasia [33]. And has done "small" changes to at least one article that Corticopia used to be obssesed with such as UN geoscheme for the Americas [34].
- As an experienced administrator dealing with sockpuppets, I believe that you could agree with me that those are just too many coincidences. Well, guess what? Mclay1 is also from Canada. He just deleted that info from this user page and changed it to "England"[35].
- I noticed this because just now, Mclay1 reverted to an edit made by Chipmunkdavis[36]. It seems that "he asked him" to do it in his talk page. I guess Chipmunkdavis didn't want to drag more attention to his account and that's why he stopped edit warring with me. Guess what kind of edit they both reverted? One related to clearly denoting Central America. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 10:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Ed, I think we do need a CheckUser [37], now Corticopia is cowardly acussing me of not assuming "good faith" and "ownership of articles". I just wouldn't let a sockpuppet game with the system. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
username
- Hi, how is it working when a user creates a name that is a real life person and gets involved in issues surrounding that living person? I thought they should be blocked until they either self identify as that living person or they should get a new username and stop asserting that they are that living person? Issue is a general question but is on relation to this user who is as I know in a legal issue with the Tolkien family. Google search for the username. I would block him and point him towards OTRS to identify or if he doesn't want to or can't do that then he should change his name. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am personally convinced this is the named person. Who else would go to so much trouble to defend CC's interests, or know so much about the legal case? We'll see if he responds to your question. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, lets see - I am sure you have an eye on him, thanks. I do think sometimes we allow these type of claims to go unchecked when we should confront them sooner, as in..either confirm you are that person or stop claiming to be him.Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed, he has replied and is asserting he is that person in real life, I have asked him to identify and not to edit in articles and discussions related to his real life until he self identifies to OTRS and I have asked one of the OTRS volunteers I know to assist him in identifying. If you think there is a better way to proceed please do and if you know someone from OTRS that would be good to help please also do notify them. Off2riorob (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- We have no articles that discuss Christopher Carrie at present. My recommendation is to not add any information about the Tolkien/Carrie legal disputes to the Tolkien family article. Until editors have decided to cover this topic I don't see why we need CC to prove his identity. If he chooses to voluntarily self-identify through OTRS that's harmless. If he were to persist in adding information about Carrie (from personal knowledge) but declined to use OTRS then he could be blocked from that username. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I will convey that to him, basically, he should not really discuss the issues without identifying to OTRS as I see it, if he is claiming to be a living person and discussing himself that is a clear issue imo. Thanks, lets see what he wants to do. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Help needed with new, non-English-speaking editor
Could you please help again regarding: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_help_with_non-native-English-speaking_editor. You did place a 3RR warning on the editor's talk page. Thanks for that. But mis-behavior is continuing (details in the ANI section). Any help is appreciated! --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your advice here is well-taken. Maybe you should use more RFCs for the points still in dispute. The discussion does not appear to be stalled, and I don't see any 3RR violation, so it is not clear that any admin action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. I was just looking for a second editor to independently re-affirm the WP polices (V, OR, MOS, 3RR, etc) to the new editor. I think that if 2 or 3 editors emphasize the policies, the new editor would pause and try to understand the rules. For some reason, he was not listening to me alone. After I requested your help, another editor joined the Talk page so at least there is a second veteran voice participating. So I don't need your help at this point in time. I'll ping you again if things get out of hand. Thanks. --Noleander (talk)
User:124.176.118.18
I noticed you edited the section. This means you are dealing with it? I am not seeking a block. Just someone to have a word with him about using talk pages. Dapi89 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The IP seems to have access to some of the same documents that you do, but he has been quite stubborn. I hope he will come back and participate further after the block expires. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd still be interested in understanding the way in which the 1950 FB.VI manual I linked to is inaccurate or indeed totally wrong. The limits which appear there {http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Mosquito/MosquitoFB6Manual.pdf) are the same as appear in the Crecy notes for the NF.38 - that's a fact, not opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.118.18 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
User:188.140.88.37
Hey Ed. User:188.140.88.37, who made an edit to Talk:Celts, is clearly Sleeping water trying to avoid his block. Care to handle it?--Cúchullain t/c 12:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Block extended. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- nonsente I made the edit refuting Sleeping water comments. By the way my Ip is portuguese, and Sleeping water happens to be in some other location and we do not agree at all. He claims tribes from Iberia were not celts I defend exactly the opposite. Read the edit, he defends the Putzger Historical Atlas, and I say it has not always been very accurate. Anyway check his location he is in probably France, but being in france does not mean bean ethnically french, maybe it is why he has that out of africa
early 20th century fixation about the iberians and acquitanians 89.214.202.30 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
St Kilda Football Club article again
The indefinitely blocked editor User:BrianBeahr, aka User:Sainterman, seems to be back on the St Kilda Football Club article again with yet another sockpuppet user name - User:BJWrwandb. I have just reverted dozens of edits all which conform exactly to Brian's easily identifiable editing style. Can you please have a look at this. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked. I am relying on your ability to recognize his editing style, because his changes all look quite technical to me. What I can observe is that he made a large number of changes in a short time, and he must have gone to some trouble to get the account autoconfirmed, to avoid the semiprotection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Omid Kordestani (Kurdish or Persian)
| He was born in Tehran, per the sources. Please read them all. There is no reliable source which says he is Kurdish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
As myself am from Middle East, NOT ONE OF THOSE ETHNICS EVER OTHER THAN THE KURDS THEMSELVES WILL CARRY THIS NAME PROUDLY. I have never seen or heard that somebody with kurdistani name is not Kurdish, they are either lying, or that the individual became assimilated, and only the name survived this assimilation. There are thousands and thousands of families all over the middle east with the name kurdistani, Kurdi, or Al kurd, or al akrad, or kredi that are totally assimilated into other ethnics, but their origin survives in the name. Omid might be assimilated to persian, but the way of our culture back in middle east, the ethnic related last name designates the individual as ethnically belonging to that group, this rule does not apply in Turkey, as all the names forced MUST be TURKISH, such as the leader of kurdish party Ahmad TURK. One interesting question I have, why after all this upheaval in regards to Omid’s ethnic origin, why Omid did not come out and verbally announced that he IS NOT KURD, and that HE IS AN ETHNIC PERSIAN Can you please investigate this web site, reverse the changes that imposes the persian ethnicity on him (if you found what I write makes sense of course), and then if you may correct his ethnic designation from Persian to Iranian (Since Kurdish & Persians are Iranians) and then please restrict access to those individuals. God Bless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.174.73 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Many Kurds are born in Tehran, that does mot make them Persians, but they are Iranians, there is no argument about it. he says I am Iranian, therefore, the ethnicity should be changed to Iranian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.122.70 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Omid Kordestani (Kurdish or Persian)
| This discussion belongs at Talk:Omid Kordestani. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Not sure what happened? I may have deleted the page by mistake when editing, re-posting it again. Ed please see the last two paragraph, I have not received your response Thanks
Hey Ed, I wonder if you can help. in regards to Omid Kurdistani's ethnic background, there seems to be a lot number of Persian ethnics in wiki and the web, some are administrators I believe, try to impose Persian ethnicity on Omid Kurdistani, just because he (Omid) mentioned that he is either Iranian, or that he was born in Tehran, or that he speaks Persian, and that they never heard him speak Kurdish???? These Persian wiki/web individuals rush deliberately to impose that Omid Kurdistani is not a Kurd but a Persian??!! just thought to give you some heads up in regards to the region’s mentality and the Kurdish issue at the forefront as it seems from your name (Anglo Saxon) you are a neutral individual ...........You see, a person born in Tehran, says I am Iranian (Kurds are actually Iranian but they are not Persians), and speaks Persian, can without any doubt be an ethnic Kurd. These Persian individuals know this fact 100%, but they deliberately ignore it. the reason I am saying this is because this description actually describes myself as well. there are thousands and thousands of Kurds in the same situation that do not even speak there mother tongue. In middle east no ethnic Arab, Persian, nor Turk, will name his family name as Kurdistani unless he is actually originally Kurd himself or is descended from a Kurdish heritage, one reason is that the hate they carry toward everything Kurdish,. if you follow the news of the region and the tension between different ethnicities you'll know this fact.....you see the story goes like this with those individuals, let's take an example of the famous Kurd Saladin > he was always described by Arabs and other ethnics that he is either Arab, Turk or whatever, although there are tons of historical records that always described him as a Kurd, but these docs were deliberately brushed aside just because this Kurd made a fame and glory in history that he became an envy of the world, automatically these individual model type go to work and bring up amazing fantasies that will describe him as from their background or other, but NOT KURDISH, the fantasies goes that he is related to this Arab tribe that was kurdisized, that he is Iranian origin lived with the kurds became bla bla bla bla.....etc....etc....etc If Omid's Name was Omid Faresi, they would have said, Faresi means Persian then he is a Persian. I do not have a problem if Omid actually is a persian, but the problem is he never said that, there are no sources to prove this, he said I am iranian (well kurds are also Iranians), he speaks in Persian (well actually many Kurds speak several languages, persian, arabic, and turkish all at the same time). I wonder if Saladin lost war against the crusade, I am 100% sure that none of those model types would have said he belonged to their race, they'd say right a way, oooh he is Kurdish.......I hope you understand what I am saying. As myself am from Middle East, NOT ONE OF THOSE ETHNICS EVER OTHER THAN THE KURDS THEMSELVES WILL CARRY THIS NAME PROUDLY. I have never seen or heard that somebody with kurdistani name is not Kurdish, they are either lying, or that the individual became assimilated, and only the name survived this assimilation. There are thousands and thousands of families all over the middle east with the name kurdistani, Kurdi, or Al kurd, or al akrad, or kredi that are totally assimilated into other ethnics, but their origin survives in the name. Omid might be assimilated to persian, but the way of our culture back in middle east, the ethnic related last name designates the individual as ethnically belonging to that group, this rule does not apply in Turkey, as all the names forced MUST be TURKISH, such as the leader of kurdish party Ahmad TURK. One interesting question I have, why after all this upheaval in regards to Omid’s ethnic origin, why Omid did not come out and verbally announced that he IS NOT KURD, and that HE IS AN ETHNIC PERSIAN Can you please investigate this web site, reverse the changes that imposes the persian ethnicity on him (if you found what I write makes sense of course), and then if you may correct his ethnic designation from Persian to Iranian (Since Kurdish & Persians are Iranians) and then please restrict access to those individuals. God Bless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.174.73 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Many Kurds are born in Tehran, that does mot make them Persians, but they are Iranians, there is no argument about it. he says I am Iranian, therefore, the ethnicity should be changed to Iranian Hello Ed You have not responded to my last message!!?? Where does in your references says that he is a persian??? the article in wiki should adhere to acknowledged and authentic references, that is your policy, not according to the preferences and likings of some groups or the other, right!!! No where does Omid says he is a persian? Persian is an official language in Iran, but ethnically they are only approx half of the population makeup. To be Iranian does not mean that you are Persian, you can be an assimilated one, but does not mean that your ancestry is Persian, there are other minorities in Iran (the other half) that are either Kurdish, Azeri. Luri, Bakhtyari, Balouchi that do not consider themselves as Persians, and some are fighting to keep their identity alive contrary to the government's policies. Wiki's article explicitly defines Omid as Persian without authentic references, until such references (from authentic source, i.e. other than Persian magazines or web sites) will be brought into light, the wiki article should remove all wordings imposed that he is a Persian, and substitute it at least with Iranian. You have to understand that Kordistani surname is deliberately carried or created by individuals or families for nationalistic reason, so the family origin will be inscribed indefinitely, there have been hundred and hundred years of assimilation process imposed on Kurds who still and will resist to be assimilated, and that is why many Kurds carry surnames as such. Kurdistani or Kordestani is a Kurdish province means the land of the Kurds, the carriers of this name are all ethnic Kurds, there are no individuals with surname Kurdistani who is non-Kurd, let those who say in contrary bring one individual that is Persian, Turkish or Arab. if they claim so, it means they are liers, no one of those ethnic group will define themselves as such, as all those groups are against the smallest land rights to be given to Kurds, not to mention recognizing officially a geographical area called Kordestan. I am a Kurd, my mother tongue is Arabic, born in Arab land, I don't speak Kurdish, but I never or will consider or claim my self as an Arab. Again, I am not claiming where he is born, in Teahran or los Angeles or Kordestan that is not my point. Awaiting your response Thank you |
Thank semi-spam
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Machine Elf 1735
Regarding WP:AN3#User:Machine Elf 1735 reported by User:Andrew Lancaster (Result: ), how long will it take before I hear back in regard to what I've posted there? As I explained, I don't believe I've done anything wrong and I need assistance in the situation with User:Andrew Lancaster.
I'm not sure what sanctions would be but if the consensus is that his unconstructive edits are good for the encyclopedia, I'm more than happy leave him to it. I've spent countless hours responding to his demands only to have him start retaliating and selectively deleting my cited work. And does reverting his removal of an OR tag for un–cited material count as a revert? Should I not have used the "undo" button? Surely, that can't the right thing, is it?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just got your message. I'll gladly stay away from that article for 7 days if User:Andrew Lancaster's behavior will be investigated.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- But I still don't understand exactly how I broke 3RR. The reverts were all different.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:REVERT: "..reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Changes to unrelated sections of an article still count up to the total number of reverts. I am not planning to 'investigate' Lancaster. Your best bet is to attract more editors to the article, perhaps by opening a WP:Request for comment on the unresolved points. EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, per page. What do I need to do to have Lancaster be asked to take a holiday too? He most definitely reverted more than 3 of my actions, in addition to leaving the article in a red cite error state because of it.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- On August 20, Lancaster has made only three reverts (since a block of consecutive edits by one person count as only one revert). Neither of you can expect any credit for calm, sensible editing. You yourself have 91 edits to the article, while Lancaster has 64. The same person would often made a long run of edits that were only a few minutes apart. This hardly allows time for compromises to be worked out on the talk page, and does not suggest any effort to persuade. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, per page. What do I need to do to have Lancaster be asked to take a holiday too? He most definitely reverted more than 3 of my actions, in addition to leaving the article in a red cite error state because of it.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Quite a few of my edit were prior to Lancaster becoming involved in editing the page. Also the first block of my edits were when I was tasked with merging it with Actus et potentia. But it's Lancaster's rapid and escalating talk page demands that are much more of an issue than rapid edits to the article... I've had to spend an enormous amount of time responding to that talk page and to Talk:Energeia (one of the articles to be merged). Would it make any difference if I could prove he's made false and misleading statements in his "charges"?
But if that's not the sort of thing you usually look into, I don't want to impose. Should I open a WP:AN3 like he did? I've collected this list from Aug 20 where Lancaster has reversed actions of mine, in whole or in part. (That's not all, and that's just the 20th).
- Lancaster's deletion of most of what I've worked on in the article:
- My changes to the definitions in the lead from 01:43, 20 August 2010:
- My addition of modal logic to the lead from 02:30, 20 August 2010:
- My changes to §Actuality from 01:10, 20 August 2010:
- My addition of an OR tag from 00:58, 20 August 2010
Please let me know if more instances or additional information on each would be helpful. Or anything that would help shed some light. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I did open a RfC on the OR tag removal. Unfortunately, there aren't many "Aristotelian" philosophers in general and fewer on WP but yes, I'm hoping it might get the attention of an admin who knows a thing or two about Aristotle and won't be intimidated.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Message added 06:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lancaster's first edit to the article was 12:41, 17 August 2010, directly after a string of 41 edits, by me, going backing through Aug 7. (There are 2 unrelated edits July 31). The wp:EDSUM for the 41st reads: "merge content from Actus et potentia from [16:39, 7 August 2010] through [18:40, 16 August 2010]. This step is required in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements." There's nothing ambiguous.
I found three non–consecutive reversals within a 24 hour period. Has the prior WP:AN3 completely shut down? Do I need to start a new one?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to work on the articles ever again. See the WP:AN3 thread...
- Four, I don't have. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
A few things that might be relevant if I may comment:
- 1. Can Machine Elf give a diff for "Also the first block of my edits were when I was tasked with merging it with Actus et potentia." He has occasionally made these comments about how he did jobs I demanded he do. My memory was that when merge discussion was still friendly for example on Talk:Energeia he pro-actively asked for time to do some jobs himself, his way, and there was no pushing or dispute about this. Things got heated when he suddenly unilaterally starting removing merge tags, and moving drafts we had agreed to work on. I have no idea what caused these sudden changes, but from later comments it seems to be that Machine Elf became extremely uncomfortable with the edits being made by other people on "his" work.
- 2. EdJohnson, you write that "Neither of you can expect any credit for calm, sensible editing. You yourself have 91 edits to the article, while Lancaster has 64. The same person would often made a long run of edits that were only a few minutes apart. This hardly allows time for compromises to be worked out on the talk page, and does not suggest any effort to persuade." Making a series of connected edits during a complex job like merging is almost impossible to avoid isn't it? So what you are saying is presumably that these edits may have come without warning or agreement or attempted agreement, right? But then you really need to look at the talk pages, which is where Machine Eld's description of my behavior is that I am "demanding", in other words quite actively trying to get answers, proposals, comments etc. At one point he said that it looked like I was simply desperate for attention, which in a way is true. Postings requesting clarifications and proposals go without answering, and then there are sudden releases of obscenity and personal attack, and then I try again and again, and then eventually I actually do some editing, and so on.
- 3. I have by the way posted some comments about the present article freeze at the 3R noticeboard. Machine Elf clearly sees it, or wants to see it, as something directed at me, and justifying his demands, which were indeed that he wanted editing stopped. That does not seem to be the real intention and if I compare to my understanding of the real intention, it may be heading things in the wrong direction. Of course, if my editing needs adjustment someone should contact me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Update.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You are now mentioned here: [38]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Ed, there is a duplicate article below, when I tried to paste the last paragraph, I could not find the original article, so created another one. it then re-appeared from no where.
You may delete the other one if it can be done
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.122.70 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Archive
Hi. I tried several times to archive, and I simply can't figure out how to do it properly. (I see you are quite the expert.) In my previous attempts I managed to make an archive 1, followed by an archive 4 (what happened to 2 and 3?). If you have the time and inclination, you can restore the previous page, and then archive it. Thanks.Edstat (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
My language about Einsteindonut on ANI and elsewhere
Hi Ed,
I recently received a warning about my posts about Einsteindonut/"David Appletree"/theJIDF. I know some people think that this will somehow encourage him. However, it is my opinion that his history of prolonged disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia is such that he is quite capable of behaving badly without my help. Aftr all, it was other people who started the hagiography/advert thread. It is also my opinion that in the case of obnoxious vandalistic trolls (as opposed to good faith editors who are just not very good) WP:IAR trumps WP:NPA. Do feel free to let me know if you think I am really misjudging things. I wouldn't be surprised if there is not another complaint to OTRS goign on at this moment.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I share some of the concerns that others have expressed to you at User talk:Peter cohen. While there is very little one can say in defence of Einsteindonut, any discussion about his real-life identity should be avoided. Sending data by email to a checkuser would be safer. Since the JIDF thrives on attention, the vividness of your language risks working against your objectives. Your invocation of WP:IAR to justify personal attacks is not right, in my opinion. The JIDF guys can now claim 'Peter cohen is being mean to us,' which they couldn't claim before.
- The people who assert that our Jewish Internet Defence Force article is an advertisement should be asked to propose a rewrite. I doubt that they have the patience to do the necessary work, and finish it up to Wikipedia standards. In the absence of anybody who will actually do the work, I personally think that another three months of full protection would be the best thing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the replies Ed and for giving your honest opinion here and on my talk page. I've said all I want to about the JIDF for now and don't see a need to add or subtract from it and would be prepared to be blocked if a point was made of requiring me to retract my words. I don't believe in remaining silent when it comes to the purveyors of hate speech whatever direction they come from, but Roger Davies has told me via email that Wikipedia is not Cable Street. Anyway, I think Appletree's latest posts have ensured a SNOW vote against him. Anything I do about the JIDF in the short to mid-term is going to be off-Wikipedia. I have contacts who might be able to ensure that a wider range of reliable sources become available so that if people are serious about a rewrite of the article they will have material to cover all bases.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
In view of what else has been happening recently, Wikimakesmart (talk · contribs · count) has rung some specific alarm bells. I noticed this user because Richard Wagner is a WP:GAN of mine, though some of the other GANs have been caught too. I notice that some anti-Israel posts have also been made, but I do wonder about the timing of this. What do you think?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom notice regarding Iadrian yu
Hello Mr. Johnston,
Unfortunately, the user has not hitherto been received such warning by an uninvolved administrator. However, I have read a converstion between an user, who is not an administrator, and Sandstein. In this conversation, the user asked Sandstein to give this ArbCom notice to some users as an uninvolved administrator, to which Sandstein answered that "The remedy says: Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision. So I'd say the warning needs to go on the talk page, but it does not matter who issues it." [39] So that basing on this, I have posted this warning to Iadrian yu's talk page[40], only that I am not an uninvolved administrator --Nmate (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Koov?
PBS RENTALS (talk · contribs) Colchicum (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. He continued an edit war pursued by two of his previous socks, User:PakRom64 and User:Rohil1x, at Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just a gut feeling for now, kinda hard to tell from four edits, but the style of the userpage and edit summaries looks very very familiar, and the username fits into the new pattern: PNA record (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is possible. Let's wait for a few more edits before deciding. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just a gut feeling for now, kinda hard to tell from four edits, but the style of the userpage and edit summaries looks very very familiar, and the username fits into the new pattern: PNA record (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Fraberj
Please respond on my talk page; what do you mean people seem to think the IP edits are not him? They obviously are.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
User 203.99.44.120
Good Afternoon Ed,
I am sorry to trouble you with this (again). A user at ip address 203.99.44.120 has removed information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UST_Global [41].
The first time this happened, a representative from the company restored the information that was removed. This user has now done it two more times (for which, I have restored the information).
I have noticed on the talk page of this unidentified user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.99.44.120 [42], they have been warned against doing such edits.
Thank you so much for lending your assistance.
Sincerely,
Stevejross —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejross (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've semiprotected UST Global to stop anonymous edits for now. The new editors are still welcome to propose their changes on the talk page, and any sources they can provide would be a big improvement. How nice that they removed the 'controversy' section and all the supporting references. It makes the article more peaceful, doesn't it? :-) EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. I certainly agree with your "How Nice..." comments. Thank you for responding so promptly.
Sincerely,
Stevejross —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC).
Result for Brews_ohare
Hi Ed:
The conclusion of the recent tribunal is at this link. It says:
- “Closed with a warning. Every admin who commented believes that Brews' action violated his topic ban. The admins here did not reach a consensus to block, but several of them predict that the next similar violation will produce a block without further ado.”
As you know, I requested clarification of the nature of the violation several times. Here is one of them:
- Baffled: I am being given a "pass" this one time and warned not to do "it" again. No-one has explained the rules better, or just what the infraction is. Apparently "it" is so obvious no-one can believe I don't understand "it". However, my question above is not disingenuous; I'd like an answer. I'd like to know what "it" is that I am to avoid in the future. An explanation of the charge would help to avoid "it" in the future, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can you understand a bit of confusion to find that using the appeal system to try to correct an action can result not only in denial of the appeal, but in a further tribunal that use of the appeal system is in itself a heinous offense? In other words, don't try to appeal, because appeal is a crime in some cases; you won't know which ones until it happens, and even then you won't be told why your particular appeal is one that will lead to retribution. Brews ohare (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, this action is brought under the remedy cited by Headbomb: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions, Motion 6; If there is in your minds a different basis for your ruling (and I can't think of one) Headbomb's action should be denied and he can be invited to do this all over again under the correct remedy. In particular, there is no remedy in force that restricts me from taking an action to AN/I. Brews ohare (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Pardon my paranoia, but I believe the refusal to clarify the matter despite my repeated requests indicates the deliberate intention to take a future complaint as a "similar violation" and to cite this warning as indicative that no hearing is needed and no recourse can be taken.
What can be done to get some light on this subject? Brews ohare (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Arbcom ruled as follows, in their Motion 6:
"Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. Passed 9 to 0 on 16:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)"
- Headbomb claimed that you had violated this restriction by opening up a complaint at ANI about his archiving of some comments from Talk:Matter. The admins at WP:AE agreed with Headbomb's complaint. They decided that your ANI post about the archiving of a physics-related page is forbidden by your topic ban from all 'physics-related discussions, broadly construed.' If you abstain from any future physics-related threads at ANI (or any talk page whatever) you should be OK regarding this particular issue. As I read the Arbcom Motion 6, which was very recently passed, your physics-related topic ban continues in effect until 22 August, 2011. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"Any talk page whatever"? Do you mean any "physics related talk page whatever" or something more general? Brews ohare (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can only go by the wording of the Arbcom motion. It does sound to me that you should not discuss physics on any page in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Ed I understand you are in a predicament and cannot attempt a clarification yourself that might turn out to be different from the intention of ArbCom. ArbCom has elected to be deliberately vague, leaving little point in asking them again for clarification. So we're stuck with the same-old same-old: put your foot in it and then try to wipe it off. When that happens, if they are in a good mood, ..., and if they aren't, ... Brews ohare (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- We can ask ourselves if page type X is included. But I don't see that the uncertainty affects you very much at this point. Are you really uncertain of what the restrictions allow you to do, in the area of physics? EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ed: The whole idea that appeal of an editor's premature and selective archiving of threads is a "physics-related topic" is a mystery to me to begin with, and ArbCom has adamantly and repeatedly refused to clarify how this classification seems to them absolutely obvious. Personally, I find it difficult to reconcile deliberate obtuseness with good administration.
- Their action basically reinstates the ban that was in force a few months ago with the same wording. The term "physics-related" has proved time and again to be something that no-one agrees upon. For example, DickLyon suggested that the definition of a mathematical term for a property of an ellipse was "physics related" because planets move in elliptical orbits and so it was physics. Another block resulted because I made some comment that referred to Talk:Speed of light as an example of a dysfunctional Talk page, and use of the page name was a violation because it referred to a physics-related topic. You may well take the same view, that these are violations, and that this entire meta-discussion is a violation because the word "physics" has occurred in it.
- In my opinion, there are two problems at work here: first, there is a cadre of editors that will use pretext to invoke the ban, in full knowledge that it is simple harassment (DickLyon's example is an obvious instance) and second, there are a great number of admins who have no clue what "physics" is: is it math, is it chemistry, is it something you drink? Without a thought about whether my edit is a problem for WP, they will jump in and block based upon the most nit-picking and stupid apparent violations under the broadly construed provision, which simply opens the door to ignorant objection.
- So yes, there is a lot of uncertainty how the ban will play out; past history indicates that it will rain stupid interventions all over the place. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Question regarding notification of discretionary sanctions
Both previous contributors to this thread seem to have withdrawn their comments. I will take a moment to respond anyway. Actually reading through WP:DIGWUREN persuades me that only admins are permitted to issue Digwuren warnings. Perhaps that is more strict than needed. But that's how Arbcom chose to handle it in this one decision, which dates from 2007. 3RR warnings (on the other hand) can be issued by anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
sent
sent. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Violation of semi-protection policy
You have incorrectly used semi-protection to prevent edit warring between an IP editor and a logged in user on Chiropractic. This is unacceptable. Please re-read the policy WP:SILVERLOCK and note: "Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are anonymous or new editors (i.e., in cases in which full-protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved.".--Anon 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- As you may be able to see from my entry in the protection log, there was more to this than just a generic edit war involving both IPs and registered users. I provided data suggesting offsite coordination, i.e. meatpuppetry. In any case the semiprotection will expire on 3 September. Note that the article has been protected 12 times in the past, so there is a long history of edit warring. If everyone starts behaving exceptionally well, and everyone will wait for consensus before changing the article, perhaps it can be left fully unprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is an unreliable reference from a random chiropractic website. This is clearly a violation of WP:RS.
- The same editor added even more unreliable references. This time from 1978.
- Per WP:MEDRS: Under "Use up-to-date evidence": * Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.
- Sir Anon is not waiting for consensus before changing the article. More problems are explained on the talk page.
- EdJohnston, this is just another typical content dispute that will make the chiropractic article just another random article if this continues. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Celts
Catfish and the soap...24/07/2010 (10:39) : "It's interesting that a majority of those references are in French..."
It was completely false. Most of them were european : spanish, portuguese, french, german or british...
"Is this a growing trend amongst French academics, or is this simply the work of a single person with a personal agenda?"
Is it not a personnal attack ?
IP user 08/08/2010 (5:24) : I got fed up of reading so much gibberish i am not going to comment on every senseless thing you wrote"
Is it not a personnal attack ?
These are just some examples among a lot of bad faith. Since two monthes, I have brought academical sources, from books or universities. But because their conclusion don't match to some users'fantasy, they have been qualified as "amateur" by Catfish or a lot of things else. I had to copy-past them because almost no-one of them had read it. After that one user searched the smallest detail to disqualify them (and failed in this aim), I have been blocked.
You want to spread your propaganda ? Do, it. In some years, wiki will be nothing else than a stupid teenager bullshit. Just because your rule of "consensus" (you can be 10 users with the same opinion, it won't give you right anyway). But don't say that I make personnal attacks. Don't confuse attack and defense. And please, stop playing the manipulator. If you want me to be polite, send the same messages to Catfish and the portuguese IP user. --Sleeping water (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Me being blocked
I have stopped editing on Barry Hall as soon as I was given the warning, I haven't made an edit on the article since only on the discussions page. So why am I going to be blocked when I have followed the rules and not made a single edit since? GuineaPigWarrior 22:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC).
Fastflow AfD
Hi, EdJohnston. Apologies for dragging my feet re my promise back in June about this, and especially for not informing you immediately when this came up at AfD. I've had a tab open to your talk page for hours, meaning to do just that, while I was watching our friend descend into apparent lunacy at the AfD, and trying to determine how best to respond. See here and here if you're interested in what I decided. Feel free to step in right away, if you disapprove, however. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, I'd like to run an idea by you for advice. Regarding fastflow, it seems to me that the notability issue is getting tangled up a bit with the question of socking (and of course, the basic question of notability of the software per se bears no direct relation to possible socks). My thought is that I could withdraw the AFD nomination for the time being, and then check out the socking issue in the appropriate venue, while also asking some other editors involved in similar areas such as the Smith-Waterman article for help in improving the references. If we can't find any, of course, this could come back to AFD, but it seems to me that we should not be in a rush. What are your thoughts? Also, Ohiostandard and I have both received direct correspondence from Marco Aldinucci (or at least someone claiming to be him, although I think it is him). If you are interested in copies, please let me know. Thanks for any guidance you can provide. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed someone offered a new article that is apparently not written by the Fastflow team, which mentions Fastflow. Later this afternoon I will see if I can download the article. Meanwhile, I think the AfD debate is useful, and the AfD won't be closed simply due to nominator withdrawal (since others have expressed a Delete opinion). You can !vote as you wish, of course. The socking will have little effect on the result of the AfD, since any admin who knows what they are doing will make any necessary allowances. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
My Appeal
You stated at my appeal: "I support the indefinite ban from article + talk page."
Come now, and let us reason. You have not substantively addressed the basis for my appeal. Moreover, you have not offered anything in the way of substantiation supporting your opinion by demonstrating that I'd done anything inappropriate or in violation of Wikipedia policy that warranted this ban. If I have done so, I would be happy to acknowledge my fault and apologize to anyone I may have offended, but it would seem incumbent upon you, since you are supporting an indefinite ban against me, to at least offer a single example. Please show me where you think I've erred, so I can be aware of whatever actions of mine you think were inappropriate and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Please do so at my appeal (not here). Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have nothing to add to what I've already said at WP:AE. Reasons why people might be uncomfortable with your editing behavior have been clearly explained in many other comments which are already there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're supporting your opinion by citing other opinions, similarly and equally unsubstantiated, at best, and, at worst, consisting of demonstrable falsehoods and mischaracterizations (Wgfinley's stated pretext for the ban in the first place). Is it too much to ask that you substantively address the basis for my appeal, and is it too much to ask that you offer just a single example of something I posted on the talk page that would warrant this ban? I'm not asking you to judge one way or the other. All I'm asking of you is that you be reasonable, and that your judgment be reasonable. This is not too much to ask. JRHammond (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Protection of Ludwig Wittgenstein
Hey there. I was just about to protect this, and saw that you had done. I was about to fully protect it though, as that looks more like an edit war to me, even if it hasn't broken 3RR (yet). The IP's edits aren't really disruptive, and there is an argument to be made about WP:WEIGHT, though this isn't the place for it. I'm not going to change your protection, but wondered if you might consider reviewing it and fully protecting it? GedUK 13:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Note for you on Ged's talk page, Ed. I'm concerned that you'd halt article development for one week because of one anon, given how disruptive he was and that you'd already semi-protected. The material he keeps removing will have to be in the article for it to become a featured article, because they have to include all notable debates. So the only thing that happens now is no work on the article for a week. I'm not going to discuss this with an anon with very strong views, who doesn't understand the editing process, who is calling me a moron, and who may have tried to out me. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've replied at User talk:Ged_UK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ed, I'd appreciate a response, please. I'm debating it with Ged, but I'm not sure why, because you're the protecting admin, so it's your decision. I've left more information on his talk page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for welcome message and for advises. I did not want to make problems, I am still learning how to make edits on wikipedia and I don't know what is one revert day restriction. I tried to undo because somebody tried to remove about cruelty of massacres. Now I see another person is trying to do it again. Please stop that if you can. Also I don't know why the article uses number 40.000, there were many more massacred. Urrke (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please open a discussion at Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. You are expected to find consensus for your change on the talk page before doing anything controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Negative
Hi Ed. This is bizarre, I can see the image just fine. Have you tried purging the cache? Hekerui (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Civility
I'll agree that content disputes are not necessarily vandalism. However when they are done repeatedly, disruptively, and without citation or fact, they are vandalism. I am not above making an apology in the name of civility. I'll even admit that I was wrong to accuse. However, should I be expecting an apology for the three times that I have been accused of vandalism on the same page? Ejmarten (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Celts
About you last message :
- are you an administrator of the french wiki ? No ? So, don't talk about things you don't understand. Or come on the french wiki, I will have pleasure to discuss with you.
- about your quote : you willingly ignore the provocations of the portuguese user who used the words "gibberish" about my contributions, or said that he wouldn't answer to my "non-sense" contributions. Thus, you willingly ignore that Catfish Jim made joke about me, talking about a "personnal agenda".
SO, IF YOU WANT TO QUOTE, QUOTE ALL !!! I meet everydays some guys like you. You are bad faith, I know, it is an international feature...But if you think that you are a clever manipulator, just remember that you are just a stupid puppet. --Sleeping water (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can we have this guy permanently blocked yet? He's using offensive language on my talk page as well. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have warned Sleeping water against making personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just as a FYI, an IP user User:92.161.11.212 has deleted the map on Celts (Since, reverted by another user). This user's other edits and behaviour today seem to follow a similar trend to Sleeping water's previous pattern (for example, reporting users for vandalism when they revert edits). The comments posted at Talk:Spain (which were later deleted by the same user) seem to bear this out: "Totally agree. Thus, those "celtic" origins in Iberia are completely controversial and contested by a lot of academic authors ... And all edit which would nuance this, even with academical sources, will bring you a block. The "Celts" article on the wiki is sadly a result of this propaganda of less than ten iberic or latino teenagers."
- Gabhala (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your information. I'll keep an eye on this a little longer. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Clarifications
Hi, Ed. re: Valerius' four reverts issue...
One problem not being addressed is that Valerius' first edit, the revert of the MiszaBot archive-bot edit, was not a clean simple revert. While Valerius did indeed retrieve a huge block of text from the archive and replace it on the active talk page, he also, without noting it, deleted several paragraphs of related discussion from the active talk page. His edit summary deceptively states only, (Restored blanked discussion from last year). Whether intentional or accidental really doesn't matter; I have undone his edits. In addition, I moved the paragraphs Valerius had deleted into the archives, too, since they are actually part of that old archived discussion.
Assuming good faith, I would conjecture that Valerius saw those remaining paragraphs on the active talk page, realized they were just the tail-end fragment of a much longer discussion, so he attempted to restore the full discussion. My fix returns that old discussion to the archives, and also moves those stray paragraphs from that same discussion into the archives as well. They should have been auto-archived with the rest of the discussion, but apparently the header formatting confused the archive-bot. Problem solved now, I hope. If he reverts my edit as well, then I'll no longer assume good faith, and just assume he's trying to keep defamatory content about a living person on the active talk, since he couldn't find the consensus to put it into the BLP. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Template
Dear Ed. Would you please be so kind to unprotect the template [43]? I think we both know that Corticopia got it blocked because of his edit wars. In fact, as usual, he's the only person spreading that POV. The bad thing here is that when the page was blocked it kept Corticopia's POV edit (including Mexico in Central America) and it was not reverted to the previous status quo, as stated by Wikipedia rules. It has been over a year and the page is still blocked. I think it is not fair that his false and politically driven POV is kept. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking that may be the template only need semi-protection. I think that we could see the new Corticopia's accounts going there, may be. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unclear that any problem would be solved by lifting the protection. The version of the template which is there now was actually created by you. There was quite a good discussion back in March, 2009 on the talk page. It seems to me that the definition which includes a part of Mexico in Central America as far as the Isthmus of Tehuantepec was supported by more than one editor, and there were sources which favored it. What if you were to contact User:WolfmanSF, who helped find sources back in 2009, to see if you can persuade him to change his mind? Due to the past furor, the best way to make this template change is with {{editrequest}}, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- First I have to say I'm kinda shocked and frustrated that you validate Corticopia's anonymous edits, when he was fooling us back in those days. With all the evidence we've seen in all this months I think it is safe to say that his edits were merely a disruption of a tempalte that was stable for years! I think the full protection of the template is what he was actually looking for, because if you read carefully the discussion the most references support the non inclussion of Mexico in CA. He was just aware of that so he engaged in edit war to get it blocked. This is frustrating man. That template is used as a base for other templates, and now Mexico is being included in a lot of Central American related templates, which is inaccurate.
- Unclear that any problem would be solved by lifting the protection. The version of the template which is there now was actually created by you. There was quite a good discussion back in March, 2009 on the talk page. It seems to me that the definition which includes a part of Mexico in Central America as far as the Isthmus of Tehuantepec was supported by more than one editor, and there were sources which favored it. What if you were to contact User:WolfmanSF, who helped find sources back in 2009, to see if you can persuade him to change his mind? Due to the past furor, the best way to make this template change is with {{editrequest}}, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that Mexico is by own definition a North American country. Central American countries and its population do not consider Mexico part of the area. If you go look to the most prestigious encylopedias, Central America doesn't include Mexico.
- The inclusion of a part of Mexico in Central America is only from a physiographical point of view (the similarities of the terrain) and it is sustained by some authors. Also the other editor you mentioned, WolfmanSF in fact was considering the idea of including Mexico there too undue weight, given the fact that several definitions do not include Mexico there. He created a list there with those facts. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to pursue this, consider opening a new discussion on the template talk page, possibly an RfC. You may notify the previous participants; I assume Corticopia would not have to be notified due to his sock status. If you use an RfC you could advertise it on various project pages. Your argument would be more convincing if you could find academic geography references to support your viewpoint. Those used before tended toward popular reference books. This whole thing is in a gray area so it's hard to see its earthshaking importance. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed. I have requested semi-protection instead of full protection, which has been granted by the original administrator that blocked it in the first place. Although we know that Corticopia won't be editing anonymously I'm pretty sure that Chipmunkdavis/Mclay1 (the ones I still believe is Corticopia) will. Keep an eye on that. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to pursue this, consider opening a new discussion on the template talk page, possibly an RfC. You may notify the previous participants; I assume Corticopia would not have to be notified due to his sock status. If you use an RfC you could advertise it on various project pages. Your argument would be more convincing if you could find academic geography references to support your viewpoint. Those used before tended toward popular reference books. This whole thing is in a gray area so it's hard to see its earthshaking importance. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- The inclusion of a part of Mexico in Central America is only from a physiographical point of view (the similarities of the terrain) and it is sustained by some authors. Also the other editor you mentioned, WolfmanSF in fact was considering the idea of including Mexico there too undue weight, given the fact that several definitions do not include Mexico there. He created a list there with those facts. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
User:130.194.170.146
Thanks for all the good work you are putting in on this case. Naturally, I should be delighted to be blocked and have sanctions apply in such a worthy cause as ensuring full references and sources for all mathematics in Wikipedia, beginning perhaps with Difference of squares. Have you noticed that, in the article under review Plimpton 322 much of the actual mathematics is unreferenced and unsourced, with few cross links within Wikipedia itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You might like to note that Richard Morris User: Salix alba has now come out with a completely false account of what I wrote in the expunged section of Plimpton 322. While it does help explain his actions in excising the section, it is a matter of regret that a Wikipedia editor should be such a careless reader. Notice that an explicit disclaimer was made precisely to counter any misreading. In such circumstances it is a pleasure being blocked and sanctioned, because it reveals more of Wikipedia's internal operations; and that must be all to the good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ed, the German anon is back, and another Russian one. I've put up a second request for semi-protection; see here. Would you please consider reinstating the semi-protection you added? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that TFOWR semi-protected until Sep 20. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Ownership problem
It was "debated" months ago (with a Corticopia sock) that if a note indicating that Mexico is not part of Central America, references should be given. A LOT of references have been introduced by me and Jcmenal. And "surprisingly" user Mclay1 (I'm sure you remember him) is reverting our edits. Adding the note is valid to avoid confussion or, in my opinion, the deliberately wanting to give the false impression that Mexico is part of Central America. Now that "user" is also bein uncivil... I'm not surprised. [44]. I think his attitude is falling in the category of ownership of the article. This is the edit we want to introduce [45]. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 05:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since the reference link for the UN geoscheme puts Mexico in Central America, it's not up to us to try to refute the UN's reasoning. I agree with Mclay1. The geoscheme says whatever it says. This is analogous to the Metropolitan Statistical Areas employed by the US Census. They are an arbitrary way of dividing up the country that they have just decided on. I caution you not to get involved in edit warring on the geoscheme article. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Formatting Change
Hi, I noticed you took out the underlining here. I'm glad you did it because I hated the way it looked, but I thought I was following the template instructions. I can see now that the word Comments: was supposed to be underlined, and I should have added my comments after the HTML ending the underlining. Instead, I added before. I have a suggestion for the future in case there are others, like me, who were confused, and that is to put an instruction right where the comments are supposed to go, like "insert comments here". If my error occurs rarely, then you can disregard my suggestion and chalk it up to my problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am amazed that anyone can follow the instructions at all! If that's your first 3RR report, you did well. Admins won't mind fixing up the formatting if the basic info is included. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
If you're not aware of it already, please take a look at this edit. An IP (Andy, if one takes the IP at their word), edited out all of Andy's user page with comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- It could make sense to unblock him, since it seems he did not lose control of his account. It must have been a fit of temper. But it's hard to get past his farewell statement, with 'I stand by what I did' regarding the edits that others found erratic. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it makes no sense to unblock him. Even though he acknowledges his behavior was "inappropriate", he clearly thinks it was justified. In addition, he calls his edits "erratic", but they were not. They were consistent and repeated. Finally, he hasn't made, even now, any attempt to explain his conduct or why he thought he was "above the law." Wikipedia cannot afford to have rogue editors who refuse to accept that Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and consensus-building apply to them, too. As I recall, he's quite young - not that there aren't many young editors who make worthwhile contributions - and perhaps he's simply not mature enough yet to accept the responsibility of cooperating in this kind of environment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Polaron again
I am having new trouble with P adding unsourced assertions about neighborhoods in CT, at recently split out National Register of Historic Places listings in Stamford, Connecticut and possibly also at similar National Register of Historic Places listings in Greenwich, Connecticut. Discussion so far at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Stamford, Connecticut.
The pattern is similar to previous behavior: addition of unsourced info by P, notice given at Talk page by me, no response or passive-aggressive response refusing to provide sources by P, deletion by me, revert by P. I chose to note that P's revert was an instant before my update to the Talk page went through, so that he would not have been able to read my update, and i then reverted once after my Talk page edit went through. P has reverted it again, now with an edit summary asserting a source. Like in previous cases, he often eventually refers to sources in "source dumps" at Talk page or in edit summaries. You are aware of at least some of this, but he has been warned many times by editors Acroterion, Orlady, others, about need to add sources upfront. Eventually after more editors are involved he may consent to provide inline references. I hesitate to open a new ANI report only to bring in administrators who are not familiar with the history. Can you possibly please take a look at this? --doncram (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Now it is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Polaron and User:Doncram reported by The Thing // Talk // Contribs (Result: ). Your attention would be appreciated. --doncram (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What's a revert?
Hi, EdJohnston. I thought I should let you know that I've asked here, at WP:AN for admins to vet some text I wrote about what constitutes a "revert" under 3RR rules. It's not that I doubt the reply you gave at 3RRNB recently; I don't. But I mention your clarification there, although I don't name you or link to it, and I know you're pretty expert in 3RR matters, so I thought it would be correct to at least inform you of the post. All comments, clarification, and criticism welcome, of course. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, again, Ed. It often takes kicking an idea around with others, and hearing what they have to say about the topic, before I can get to the question I really need to ask. So the discussion at AN that I mentioned above has been really helpful to me. I don't know whether you looked in or not, but I've been able to say at AN what I was asking there much more concisely:
Just thought if you'd had a look, and decided my initial question was too vague, that I'd mention this more concise version of the same. Sorry it took me so long to be able to formulate the question clearly and state it concisely. Don't look in, though, if you consider this canvassing. I do not want to shape the outcome of the discussion, and (reminder) this isn't about a content dispute; I'm not involved in one. I just want to know what heuristic most admins use in this kind of situation. I've also asked all the admins who contributed previously to have another look at this more direct, concise statement of the information I'm looking for, btw. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Can an editor use "his daily 1RR" revert to delete some content added by an opponent an hour ago, and then also walk through the article like a shopper pushing a cart down a grocery aisle and just remove (or restore) whatever additional content he chooses to suit his POV? Merely because that additional content was added (or removed) a year ago or a month ago, and is thus not under current dispute? Doing so might violate other policies, but does it violate 1RR or not?
- I can't improve on the wording of the policy, and I don't see it as ambiguous. The age of the content removed does not matter. Consecutive reverts by the same person count as one. In your 'shopping cart' example, the multiple removals most likely add up to one revert. You haven't revealed the name of the article where you think editors are exceeding the limits of 1RR, so I can't comment on that one. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well I like your answer, although at least one of your friends at AN wouldn't, or wouldn't much, as it appears. So far, no one there has said exactly what you're saying here. I think you're in the right of it, of course, and think that especially for 1RR articles the rule needs to be applied literally. Some people are saying a literal interpretation is too restrictive, but I believe it's intended to be very restrictive, since the only alternative is full protection or blocking individual users.
- I haven't disclosed a specific article or case because I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble and I wanted responses to be general rather than tailored to a particular article or edit history. But the way you handled the FastFlow thing was exemplary, imo, so I have no hesitation in trusting you with the details of the instance I had most in mind when I started the AN thread. I'll e-mail them to you, just to be courteous in this, since I know you understand that I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked or even warned at this point. I wouldn't want that, actually, since I'm assuming the good faith of the currently-most-prolific 1RR violator. He's just misinterpreting the rule at this point, imo, and truly thinks it's okay to both revert a recent edit and subsequently load up the shopping cart with multiple older ones, to continue that useful metaphor, even after intevening edits by other users have occurred. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 05:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A question about the meaning of "revert"
Hello. You recently commented on a case regarding user:FellGleaming. He has now said I have broken the 1RR rule twice on Watts Up With That in two days. I'm not sure I have. Briefly - on two occasions in the past 48 hours I altered recent changes, at least one of which was not objected to by the editor in question (FellGleaming), and I doubt very much if the other one would be either - although I accept this may be by-the-by. The other content change was one discussed on the talkpage, a suggested change I put forward which was unopposed for more than 24 hours. Other edits were typos, reference clear-ups and the removal of one source that didn't actually mention the subject or point in hand at all (I suspect it had been left in after a previous edit.). My understanding is that "revert" means more than "edit". I should say that FellGleaming has been perfectly polite about this. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- When admins are counting reverts, they usually don't count misspellings or grammar corrections. What I stepped through the history of Watts Up With That from 15 and 16 September I didn't notice you breaking the 1RR rule. I saw that you changed 'Micheal' to 'Michael', which it is hard to object to. If FellGleaming thinks you went over the limit he should give the timestamps of the edits he considers to be reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
New interface
Hi! I actually finished it today, but there's some minor tweaks I'll complete tomorrow. Please see User:Netalarm/AN3 for the reporting form. The actual report is saved at User:Netalarm/Sandbox, but in the future, the report will be automatically saved to the right page. Thoughts? I think this new system is easier new users, but more comments are always welcome. I'll most likely reply to you tomorrow, since I'm going offline now. Netalarmtalk 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work on this. Ideally, the interface would complete the 3RR *report header* properly, since new users misunderstand it so frequently. Even getting the new section title correct would be helpful. In your Sandbox, you've called the report 'Netalarm' , but usually the report would be called 'User:Netalarm reported by User:Joe Schmoe (Result: )'. For a sample of some incomplete headers that I've fixed over the past month, see:
- A couple of these may already be solved by your approach, since I think you have no HTML comment brackets in your version. But if the interface could address some of the above it would be very helpful. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The improper username/article templates are solved with this approach, the header would be an easy fix from what has already be done, but I'm just curious, do we really need the "reported by" section? AIV, UAA, COIN, etc. reports aren't titled "reported by" someone, so this seems a bit odd to me. Netalarmtalk 22:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone submitting at AN3 takes the risk that their own behavior will be looked at as well. Also, when two people have a dispute, and both are annoyed, it is enough (in theory) for either of them to make a report. That is enough for admins to check whether one, both, or neither should be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The improper username/article templates are solved with this approach, the header would be an easy fix from what has already be done, but I'm just curious, do we really need the "reported by" section? AIV, UAA, COIN, etc. reports aren't titled "reported by" someone, so this seems a bit odd to me. Netalarmtalk 22:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Late, but never say never
Hi Ed :) This is a note to communicate my thanks for your voting in my RfA. It's sent belatedly, but with its wishes intact :):) Thanks. Your vote mattered. Rgds Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: How to improve the 3RR noticeboard
Hello Gurch. You did the last major improvement in how the reports are submitted at WP:AN3. (You did the 'Click here to add a new report' button). Do you have time to discuss some further ideas? I wish there was some way to automate the creation of the section header for each new 3RR report, in the form: 'User:Xxx reported by User:Yyy (Result: )'. (People get this wrong all the time). Can the currently-used Inputbox extension be coaxed to allow this? Please reply on my talk page if you are willing to comment. The impulse for this work was some stuff that User:Netalarm did, but the next step is not obvious. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- It can't be completely automated. The "inputbox" extension makes no provision for section titles of new sections. The section header can be filled in from a link, but it will still have to contain two "Fill these in" sections for the user's username and reported user's username. These are currently in the text of the section itself. Gurch (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The tradition is to have the names of the two users *both* in the header and in the text of the section. I realize it would be tough to put them automatically into the text, but getting them just into the *header* would (IMO) be a big step forward. For instance, the submitter could type the name of the warring-editor and then a pushbutton function could automatically put their name in as the submitter with all the brackets, parens etc to complete the usual section title for the report. (A lot of submitters get this wrong and then the admin has to study the complaint and fix the header). It is not clear to me whether any automatic processing can be done on the word that is typed into the inputbox before it appears in the section title. The task of creating a 3RR report is not as tricky as creating an AfD nomination, and I know we have Javascript to help with that, i.e. the afd_nominate() function. If Mediawiki is beyond its limits on this task then maybe Javascript could be considered for those who want to submit a 3RR complaint without making mistakes. Let me know if you think Mediawiki could address this more simply. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Inputboxes can be used only for two things: creating a page, and searching. It is not possible to do anything else with them, such as what you want to do here. The only thing that can be done is to provide a link, not a button, like is being done now, that has extra parameters in it that specify what is displayed in the edit window when first editing. There is no way to automatically add the name of the user being reported, and the only way to add the name of the user doing the reporting is by having them add their signature.
- The tradition is to have the names of the two users *both* in the header and in the text of the section. I realize it would be tough to put them automatically into the text, but getting them just into the *header* would (IMO) be a big step forward. For instance, the submitter could type the name of the warring-editor and then a pushbutton function could automatically put their name in as the submitter with all the brackets, parens etc to complete the usual section title for the report. (A lot of submitters get this wrong and then the admin has to study the complaint and fix the header). It is not clear to me whether any automatic processing can be done on the word that is typed into the inputbox before it appears in the section title. The task of creating a 3RR report is not as tricky as creating an AfD nomination, and I know we have Javascript to help with that, i.e. the afd_nominate() function. If Mediawiki is beyond its limits on this task then maybe Javascript could be considered for those who want to submit a 3RR complaint without making mistakes. Let me know if you think Mediawiki could address this more simply. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Edit warring at Ancient Greece
You have reverted a tag nine times at Ancient Greece since 15 September. While opening a case at mediation is a worthwhile step, it does not entitle you to continue reverting. (So many people have reverted your change, it should be clear to you that you don't have consensus). SInce you are an established editor, I assume you are familiar with the WP:3RR policy. Your last revert was *after* you were notified at WP:ANI#Edit warring over cleanup templates. There may still be time for you to avoid sanctions if you will self-revert your last change. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- EdJohnston, forgive me but can you explain? The 3RR applies to content changes, not cleanup banners. Editors cannot arbitrarily decide to remove cleanup banners regardless of how many disagree. There must be a good-faith effort at discussion before the banner can be removed.
- --Mcorazao (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- There *has* been a good-faith discussion. You are welcome to continue the discussion, though as yet you haven't convinced even a single person to support you. Tags can be the subject of edit warring just like a word or a phrase. "Editors cannot arbitrarily decide to remove cleanup banners regardless of how many disagree." Sorry, but that's your own personal opinion, you won't it in the WP:Edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ed, I'm sure you realize that when a discussion turns acrimonious on Wikipedia editors tend to stay away. I was hoping that given a little time RJC would calm down and either choose to leave or choose to have a civil discussion. And hopefully at that time other editors would choose to join the discussion. When I had originally made the suggestion of a change many months ago there was an editor who supported making a change (you can look at the history for yourself). But I could tell RJC was going to be a pain and at the time I simply did not feel like getting drawn into a fight. I revisited this recently and decided I wanted to pursue this further and, as expected, RJC turned it ugly very quickly. If look at the talk page, there is a lot of text and very little of it has to do with the issue. So you cannot argue that the issue has really been discussed in any real depth. Perhaps more importantly, nobody has offered any references to support
the inclusion of the disputed statementskeeping only the statements questioned and not being willing to balance the content. - The point of these banners is to attract attention to a concern and solicit discussion. Once it is clear that the discussion will be fruitless then, yes, keeping the banners is bad faith. But until that time trying to remove the banners prematurely is itself bad faith. Some cleanup banners, such as {{Afd}}, even include a specific warning against revision.
- --Mcorazao (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ed, I'm sure you realize that when a discussion turns acrimonious on Wikipedia editors tend to stay away. I was hoping that given a little time RJC would calm down and either choose to leave or choose to have a civil discussion. And hopefully at that time other editors would choose to join the discussion. When I had originally made the suggestion of a change many months ago there was an editor who supported making a change (you can look at the history for yourself). But I could tell RJC was going to be a pain and at the time I simply did not feel like getting drawn into a fight. I revisited this recently and decided I wanted to pursue this further and, as expected, RJC turned it ugly very quickly. If look at the talk page, there is a lot of text and very little of it has to do with the issue. So you cannot argue that the issue has really been discussed in any real depth. Perhaps more importantly, nobody has offered any references to support
- There *has* been a good-faith discussion. You are welcome to continue the discussion, though as yet you haven't convinced even a single person to support you. Tags can be the subject of edit warring just like a word or a phrase. "Editors cannot arbitrarily decide to remove cleanup banners regardless of how many disagree." Sorry, but that's your own personal opinion, you won't it in the WP:Edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Should I now assume that you are declining my offer? EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ed, if you choose to abuse the priviledge that Wikipedia has given you that is on your conscience. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mcorazao (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
As you have dealt with this issue before I am coming to you directly. The IP is back on this page. He had the 'support', shall we say of another IP. I suspect it is a sockpuppet this guy is running, or at least a friend operating with him. Could you check this out? Dapi89 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not actually excessive vandalism; it's just the one guy. It's just he keeps coming back whenever protection drops and he switches IPs. In fact the page was just unprotected a couple of days ago. HalfShadow 03:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- If he switches IPs, surely there is no defence except semiprotection? EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a way you can set the page so it simply won't allow an edit from a certain IP? He generally edits from a 69.151 prefix. Other than that, I can't see anything but indefinite semi-protection being the only way to deal with him. HalfShadow 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- If all the abuse is coming from 69.151.* addresses, then a rangeblock is possible. I don't think it is that simple, though. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is there a way you can set the page so it simply won't allow an edit from a certain IP? He generally edits from a 69.151 prefix. Other than that, I can't see anything but indefinite semi-protection being the only way to deal with him. HalfShadow 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed unblock of User:Iaaasi
Just to let you know that I have proposed an unblock of User:Iaaasi at WP:AN if you wish to comment, having been one of the admins who blocked him. Regards, –MuZemike 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Lysdexia socks
Is there a specific page I should report probable Lysdexia socks on? Two additional IPs have tried reinstating the same edits as were made by the IP you blocked. These IPs were blocked as open proxies, but as far as I know haven't been added to the sock list (or for that matter, proven to be socks, beyond passing the duck test for being the same editor as the IP you dealt with). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you are referring to 88.187.16.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If this IP is now blocked as a proxy, and due to their edit pattern you are confident this is Lysdexia, go ahead and place this tag on the IP's user page: {{ipsock | Lysdexia | confirmed | blocked=yes}} .
- If you are not quite sure, leave the same tag but omit the 'confirmed'. This will add that IP to Lysdexia's sockpuppet category, which is useful for record-keeping. Compare to the tag I already placed at User:72.254.128.201. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I added "confirmed" for those IPs that explicitly identified themselves in edit summaries as lysdexia, and omitted it for the IP that didn't. Also, following User:Zzuuzz's lead, I added "blocked proxy" templates to IP addresses whose block rationales indicated that they were confirmed to be proxies. The exception is 72.254.128.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as the block rationale indicated a proxy on port 80, which sounded a bit funny to me (though of course it could be correct; it's not my area of expertise). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I verified this one myself. Enable the 'proxy' feature of your web browser, specify this IP as the proxy server, and tell your browser what port to use. Then use 'whatismyip.com' or some other site to verify that your IP has changed. For background, look at User:Zzuuzz/Guide to checking open proxies. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I added "confirmed" for those IPs that explicitly identified themselves in edit summaries as lysdexia, and omitted it for the IP that didn't. Also, following User:Zzuuzz's lead, I added "blocked proxy" templates to IP addresses whose block rationales indicated that they were confirmed to be proxies. The exception is 72.254.128.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as the block rationale indicated a proxy on port 80, which sounded a bit funny to me (though of course it could be correct; it's not my area of expertise). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Read and bookmarked, thanks. I've added the template to that IP's page. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Reverts
Dear EdJohnston, I hope you are doing well. In light of your administrative decision which stated that Urdu scripts cannot be added or removed from Bollywood related film articles until a new consensus is reached, I (along with User:WookieInHeat) have reverted removals by User:Mdmday. I thought I would let you know. Thanks for taking the time to read this message. Respectfully, AnupamTalk 15:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have left a note for Mdmday, alerting him to the past discussion. I hope this will be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Keravelt + FederalInvestigator blocked
I've blocked the puppet indefinitely, and the master for 96 hours for breaking 3RR, using puppets to gain the upper hand in a dispute, being a huge pain in the butt, etc. Might you consider an unprotection of the article now that there's no one to revert? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
IP
Kinda obvious that 118.96.135.146 and 41.210.55.157 (a proxy you blocked) are the same editor. 118.96.135.146 basically picked up where 41.210.55.157 left off in this discussion. 夢追人YumeChaser 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also these two, HallyTVXQ and 202.149.67.82. I've dealt with this person before and the only way to get them to stop is to protect the articles that they are targeting at the moment. User:EunSoo is the user I am referring to. He is the sockmaster and tries to do everything he can to remove the Asian text from the main infobox. 夢追人YumeChaser 13:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- User:Zzuuzz took care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protect Chiropractic again?
Back at the beginning of July you semi-protected Chiropractic due to the excessive numbers of new and unregistered users removing the same clause, suggestive of off-site coordination. The consensus on the talk page is fairly solid, but this string of removals seems to have flared up again - might I convince you to take a look? Of the recent IPs, 173.xxx, 205.xxx, 99.xxx, and 209.xxx all geolocate to Toronto, so we might just have one person wandering around to different coffeeshops. The full range of Toronto is obviously too big for a rangeblock, but the 209 block registered to Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College is small enough. Obviously, since I am involved I make no recommendation on the advisability of this. Please let me know if you would prefer I take this to RFPP or AN3 instead of here. Thank you for your time, - 2/0 (cont.) 11:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Back on July 3, there was evidence that meatpuppetry or off-site coordination was going on. This time it's not so clear. If there is a lot of trouble getting people to discuss before making changes, a long period of full protection might be considered, with changes made through {{editprotect}}. Some place like ANI could be asked to approve this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Eminem discography
Hi, you recently had fully protected Eminem discography because another editor and I were having disputes over the choice of markets. The article had been semi-protected (indefinitely) since the beginning of September, 2010. Now that the full-protection has been expired the semi-protection, I believe, needs to be re-applied manually, because the full-protection doesn't seem to have switched back to semi-protection on its own. Could you please re-apply the semi-protection. That article happens to be target for vandals. Thanks in advance.--Harout72 (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the necessity. Luckily another admin has taken care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Range block
That vandal is back, but on 75.36.136.0/21.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can you give me some examples of the past vandalism? What ranges were blocked before? EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- You blocked a few other ranges in the past, but User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Ref removing vandal is where I have all the info.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have blocked 75.36.136.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) three months for vandalism per your evidence at User:Ryulong/Sandbox and Wikipedia:Abuse response/76.205.27.234. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- You blocked a few other ranges in the past, but User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Ref removing vandal is where I have all the info.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!
Hi EdJohnston, welcome to the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team. I am excited to get started, the discussion of project details will be on the [WP:USPP/Assessment Talk page]. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for joining the PPI Assessment Team. There is a request for you to review some articles and a description of assessment logistics on the WP:USPP Assessment Page. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston, thank you for assessing articles in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. I have learned a lot from many of the assessors comments and am really excited about the insight from this group of Wikipedians. I hope you are finding some benefits to involvement in this project. 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so if interested, those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, and 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating.
To give you an update on assessment, about half of the assessments are complete for the first part of this first assessment. I had some trouble finding public policy experts to join us in assessing, but finally managed to recruit a group last week, hopefully some of them will join the discussion on the assessment talk page. Next week, I should have some preliminary results to share with you, I will also post the second assessment request very soon. The discussion on the talk page is very exciting, and I hope if you are interested, you will provide input on the Article Feedback Tool which is being piloted on articles in WP:USPP. Please let me know if there is anything I and the project team can do to make working on this project a more positive experience. Thanks again, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
User:PraxisConsensus block
Could you please tell me how you think this editor was edit warring and why you jumped from a 72 hr block to indefinite? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Check the edit history of Austrian School and Economics. He is trying to force his preferred reference into
the lead ofboth articles. His new edits at those two articles in the last couple of days repeat the action for which he received an edit-warring block in mid-September from User:MuZemike. I gave him a final warning prior to his last set of edits. He removed the warning. He has re-inserted his reference, a paper by Justin Ptak, ten times since September 12. I have avoided looking at the potential value of the reference, and my comment is only on his behavior. Since the matter is in dispute, an RfC might be reasonable. The tiniest effort at diplomacy from PraxisConsensus might be enough reason to lift the block. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to lift the block, if they believe this editor will follow our policy in the future. In terms of what regular editors think, the discussion at Talk:Austrian School#IBCR was perhaps closed prematurely, and ought to continue. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Editors are allowed to rm warnings, this has more or less zero sway as to policy. He had only made two edits to each article in about three weeks at the time he was blocked. This looks a lot like a PoV-driven block to me, though the editor is likely gone for good now, so I guess what's done is done. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please double-check your figures. Your suggestion of any POV motivation is wide of the mark. The history count display shows 14 edits by PraxisConsensus to Austrian School since September 12, of which I make out 10 reverts. Do you disagree? EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Two edits since 14 September, meaning only two edits after the first block was up, not on the same days and which were edit warred by other users, this looks like a very harmful block to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please double-check your figures. Your suggestion of any POV motivation is wide of the mark. The history count display shows 14 edits by PraxisConsensus to Austrian School since September 12, of which I make out 10 reverts. Do you disagree? EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Editors are allowed to rm warnings, this has more or less zero sway as to policy. He had only made two edits to each article in about three weeks at the time he was blocked. This looks a lot like a PoV-driven block to me, though the editor is likely gone for good now, so I guess what's done is done. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Radiojon
My point in this case was that we should simply act, not debate the matter further; letting the debate continue on at this point would more likely attract more heat than light, in the form of individuals who want to opine on everything yet do not contribute any insight. (And yes, I probably fall into that category.) If Radiojon's not going to listen to John's reasonable & quite clear warning, he's not going to listen to a more carefully formulated restriction. And I agree with you: it's likely he's going to repeat this stunt, & then will be blocked. Any plea on his side to be blocked will be met with, "And now you want to talk to us?" Which ought to silence any Wikilawyering on anyone's part. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I consider there would be consensus right now for an editing restriction with no further ado, but I am refraining from placing it in WP:RESTRICT because of your opposition. If that's your desire, it's fine with me. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
RfC Ancient Israel
Ed, what can I do? I seem to have been tried and found guilty without being given a chance to state my case. Can I reply at User:PiCo reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Dispute resolution)?
On the larger issue, my feeling is that John Bulten feels outnumbered by editors who don't share his world-view (which is that the bible is an accurate record of history and can be quoted uncritically). Being in a minority makes him defensive and prickly. On the other hand, he does make a genuine attempt to edit according to the rules - he's not deliberately disruptive and he's open to compromise. His attitude towards me seems, unfortunately, to be terminally hostile (or at the very least highly mistrustful), but you'll see on the talk page of History of ancient Israel and Judah there's an attempt at reconciliation - I've suggested to him that he start a new section on the sources for the history (i.e., the bible and archaeology) which will give him scope to set out his views. So my suggestion is to leave things alone for now and see if he can be re-engaged in this way.
(And no, I wouldn't be happy to stop editing the article - nor would I be happy to force John Bulten to stop editing - everyone should have a role in Wikipedia: see, for example, how we've brought Romanhistorian, who was the one who was so upset at being excluded, in his view, from Authorship of the Bible, into a more fruitful relationship. But I do think it's advisable to go slowly until John Bulten calms down.)PiCo (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- You can still add your own reply to the 3RR complaint if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this RfC? Do I need to do anything specific? PiCo (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:AN3#User:PiCo reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Dispute resolution) for the outcome. The RfC is at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Conformity/verification of sources. Are you aware that it is possible to ask an uninvolved admin to close an RfC? If no agreement can be reached on Hebrew vs Canaanite, you can use a formal RfC, get it advertised, get participants, and eventually ask for the RfC to be closed by an admin, even if not everyone agrees. I can help you set up the WP:RfC if you are not familiar with the process. The RfC which is there now is quite general, and perhaps there should be another RfC that asks about a specific item like Hebrew vs Canaanite script. You could talk to the other editors as to what type of RfC is best. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ed, on the Talk page o9f History of Ancient Judah and Israel I've suggested to John that we ask an outsider to check the sources on the three paragraphs that concern him. Pending John's agreement, how would you feel about taking this on? If it's too much, we might ask you to suggest a panel of potential checkers. PiCo (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:AN3#User:PiCo reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Dispute resolution) for the outcome. The RfC is at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Conformity/verification of sources. Are you aware that it is possible to ask an uninvolved admin to close an RfC? If no agreement can be reached on Hebrew vs Canaanite, you can use a formal RfC, get it advertised, get participants, and eventually ask for the RfC to be closed by an admin, even if not everyone agrees. I can help you set up the WP:RfC if you are not familiar with the process. The RfC which is there now is quite general, and perhaps there should be another RfC that asks about a specific item like Hebrew vs Canaanite script. You could talk to the other editors as to what type of RfC is best. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where is this RfC? Do I need to do anything specific? PiCo (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe it appropriate for PiCo to comment on the presumed worldviews of other editors or myself, as I don't believe in quoting the Bible uncritically, for instance, and have not inserted my personal POVs on the disputed facts into the discussion. In due time I will relist at the RfC, for the nth time, the particular source problems perpetuated by PiCo, and we can keep cycling with those specifics. But as you've noticed, the problem arises from PiCo's uncritical reversion patterns in dealing with very basic V-NPOV-OR issues; but PiCo's habits are currently in abeyance and can be reported if they recur. JJB 18:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- John, I actually said rather complimentary things about you - I said you're not disruptive and that you're open to compromise :). PiCo (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ed, I don't understand this PiCo at all. He (I assume "he") asks you "Where is this RfC?" above on 10 Oct after he commented on it on 9 Oct. He acts as if he knows the worldviews of all the editors above, and then acts as if my objection to this original research about us was inappropriate because he thinks he was complimenting me while he was divining my POV. I finally changed his silly heading for this section "RfC JohnJBulten". I give direct disputed quotes and suggested replacement quotes at the RFC, and he acts as if I didn't say anything and completely recasts my concerns. As you can see at the RFC, he is trying to boil it down to three grafs, deleting 6 out of 17 concerns (some of which I proposed on his behalf), and trying to throw in a review of the parts of the grafs I didn't ask for. He is trying to palm this review off on you or people you appoint, rather than letting the RFC take its course naturally, even though you implied the RFC was a condition of his ability to continue editing on this topic. What do I do when an editor blithely acts as if you yourself didn't say what you said, after you point out that he did the same thing to every one of his sources? JJB 01:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
:D
A year of protection. If he doesn't give up after that, can we have indef?— Dædαlus Contribs 06:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
3RR Using IP
Hi.. earlier you had warned Varma0440 against edit warring and section blanking here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:Varma0440_reported_by_User:Anandks007_.28Result:_2_weeks.29. But he has again done his section blanking, this time using an IP as he did here. Please advise me what to do next. Axxn (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your report. I have semiprotected Nair subcastes for two months due to block evasion. If we could be certain that this IP is Varma0440, the IP itself could be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, man
Thanks for blocking some of the IP numbers in the range 79.116.20x.xxx. This will help stabilize a bunch of aviation articles for two very useful months during which consensus can be established without IP edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
IP 68.144.181.33 and 139.48.25.60
You may remember these IPs from the Blitzkrieg article, which are located in the same place. He has now taken to following me around. I am hoping this is not going to become a habbit. He has vandalised Operation Totalize already and he has done some poor "copyediting" of an article I recently got to GA (Otto Kittel). I think perhaps a familiar Administrator needs to nip this in the bud so to speek. I'm actually tempted to start a sock investigation. Dapi89 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I personally have an issue with you referring to his edits as 'vandalism'. Given that he appears to be doing anything but, this is bordering on bad-faith. HalfShadow 23:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Terrible judgement. See below. Dapi89 (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with HalfShadow. In this edit you refer to the IP's edit as vandalism, but it seems to be a good-faith edit. It would be better if the two of you would discuss this on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ed; thanks for looking into this. Editors like Dapi89 are the reason I don't use my real name anymore. Because I edit at work and at home, I show multiple IP addresses, which makes it look like a "sock puppet." But I really don't want my real name attached to these, frankly, boring pissing contests that seem to erupt by people jealously guarding their precious work. As you guessed, my edits were indeed good faith edits. You'll note that Dapi89 never 'stoops' to discussing changes on Talk pages, he simply resorts to name calling, insulting terms (see above - "poor copyedits") and the like. It's old. If you review the copy edits to Otto Kittel, you can be the judge. I can start using my actual account; I have two bachelor of arts degrees, one in History, another in Communications, and have had several books published in military history. That and a dollar will buy me a cup of coffee. So I couldn't be bothered signing in.68.144.181.33 (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- This editor is systematically following me around and disrupting the edits I make. Otto Kittel has just been copyedited by the GA reviewer, and most of the edits you have made are wrong. Totalize is just blatant vandalism. This guy isn't interested in discussion, which is why he doesn't use the talk page as he did not on the Blitzkrieg article. It makes him disruptive.
- Otto Kittel: If this IP was genuine he would talke these 'problems' to the article talk page first. I can tell him right now, that the edits made are technically poor/wrong. But he won't. He'll just continue to revert. Dapi89 (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also see Adolf Galland. Currently in GA review - he is also attempting to be disruptive there too. Another user has reverted him see here. Dapi89 (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Editor Dapi89 removed a good faith 'tidy up' edit of mine at Junkers 87. He gave no reason for doing so. I don't doubt that Dapi89 knows more about Stuka's than I do, but when I was reading the article out of interest, which is what wikipedia is for, I decided to do a re-wording for the sake of clarity. I didn't expect to find it undone with no reason given. There needs to be a Blitzkrieg on 'ownership', and if necessary the admins should be issued with 'Jericho Trumpets' for the purpose. David Tombe (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't a tidy up, and you removed the German language explanation and its translation [47]. The replacement of the word "Stuka" was also incorrect in the context it was given. When not calling it by its full name, it is referred to as a Ju 87. It was a logical reversion which had stood for some time and with good reason - it was clear (had you noticed the article was a good one). And I never said it wasn't a good faith edit. I think I deserve an apology for your erroneous assertions. Dapi89 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I hate disruptive editors following me around as much as the next guy, but the indicated changes to Otto Kittel are primarily tidying up changes, with better wording. In particular, the IP's wording "perceived public image" I feel was better than "normal public image". Also, the phrase "Otto had a reserved personality" was better than "Otto was a reserved personality". The article's sentence "Kittel was not happy with a teaching role, no matter how essential and important, filing several applications to return to his unit", included the unneeded judgment about the value of teaching, and the IP editor removed that bit. One misstep by IP guy was to misspell "bail out" as "bale out". Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Eight of the ten edits were not good. And the "unneeded judgment" comment is in itself unneeded. I think it was a pertinent point to make. Binksternet makes no mention of the connection between the Blitzkrieg article which had to be locked because of his behaviour and now denies decent and genuine IP editors from improving the article, and his vandalism to Totalize and now the Galland article in which it looks as if he's going to do his level best to disrupt. What does he think about that? I guess, just by wasting my time with all this, this troll is winning. Dapi89 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Further to your note on my talk page (I'm commenting here just to keep things in one place), I agree that the IP's edits shouldn't really be described as "vandalism" according to the definition at WP:VANDAL ("Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.") However, given your history with the editor there may be a provocative element to their edits based on those to Operation Totalize where, apparently never having edited the article before, they altered your edits alone on the article only hours after you made them. In the edit itself they seem to have misunderstood your sentence (it was making it clear that the aerial bombardment preceded the ground offensive), and they certainly shouldn't have removed content that included a citation (and left the reference work in the refs list). It would have been better if they'd copyedited rather than removed your text, or at least explained the removal on your talk page or on the article talk page.
- Whether or not you're actually being harassed, if you feel harassed it might be best for the two of you to deliberately disengage as far as possible. If not, perhaps the IP editor could suggest their text changes on the various article talk pages before making them in future? This would promote discussion, remove any temptation to revert, and might help to re-establish some measure of working relationship and good faith. EyeSerenetalk 09:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't a tidy up, and you removed the German language explanation and its translation [47]. The replacement of the word "Stuka" was also incorrect in the context it was given. When not calling it by its full name, it is referred to as a Ju 87. It was a logical reversion which had stood for some time and with good reason - it was clear (had you noticed the article was a good one). And I never said it wasn't a good faith edit. I think I deserve an apology for your erroneous assertions. Dapi89 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit war
I noticed that you protected Gospel of John. As mentioned in the 3RR report, Dylan Flahetry's behavior has been destructive on a good number of articles, and I think you should still block him. He simply reverts everything he dislikes wholesale, even one word changes, and gives no reason and offers no willingness to compromise. He is destructive to Wikipedia, and given his newness to Wikipedia I wonder if he might not have had issues before under other screen names.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- If he were the only one making large edits on that article, there would be a stronger case for admins to take action against him personally. In any event, we can be sure he knows about 3RR now. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe, but he routinely engages in edit war behavior on many other articles. There is every reason to assume he will continue to do so in the future. This, in addition to the fact that he has been doing this since he signed up a month ago, should get him blocked.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dylan just promised to continue edit warring on his user page (User_talk:Dylan_Flaherty#October_2010) and just reverted an edit I made a few minutes ago to Battle of Jericho [48]. He will keep up this behavior if nothing is done.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to try right now to look into all of this, but what's the problem with him reverting back to almost the original text, with a good edit summary? Dougweller (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dylan just promised to continue edit warring on his user page (User_talk:Dylan_Flaherty#October_2010) and just reverted an edit I made a few minutes ago to Battle of Jericho [48]. He will keep up this behavior if nothing is done.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I just found two new examples of Dylan edit warring in the last couple of hours. Both cases are simply reverts of the last edits.[49], [50]. RomanHistorian (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- It appears that Dylan has agreed to take a week off from editing Bible-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- And what if, when he returns, he begins edit warring again?RomanHistorian (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- It appears that Dylan has agreed to take a week off from editing Bible-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe, but he routinely engages in edit war behavior on many other articles. There is every reason to assume he will continue to do so in the future. This, in addition to the fact that he has been doing this since he signed up a month ago, should get him blocked.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ed, I'm taking some time off from religious articles to let things calm down. However, I'm concerned that RomanHistorian has some sort of crazed vendetta against me. He seems bent on getting me blocked forever because he doesn't like the fact that I have reverted some of his changes. This is not productive behavior, and he has been neither civil nor honest. For example, both of the links he just gave are clearly NOT edit-warring, yet that's what he's trying to pass them off as.
In a week, I'm going to look at those articles, and I certainly reserve the right to revert any changes that were not constructive. What I expect is that RomanHistorian, perhaps with support from JJB and Hardyplants, will counter-revert no matter how well-supported and reasonable my changes are. PiCo and I have tried to move this into mediation, but it has stalled, to no small extent due to RomanHistorian's hostile attitude. I hate to say it, but since he now has superiority in numbers, he does not benefit from mediation moving forward.
I really don't want history to repeat itself in a week, but I'm also not willing to sit idly by as RomanHistorian rewrites history to fit a distinctly anti-Catholic view. What do you suggest? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ed do you see how nuts this is? His vendetta against me is based, apparently, in a view that I am a bigot. This apparently gives him the right to revert everything I do, even one word edits that can't possibly be anti-catholic.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify that I'm describing his view as anti-Catholic, not him. We first met when he unilaterally removed the deuterocanonical books from Authorship of the Bible. My initial reaction is that he did this because, as a Protestant, he does not accept the canoncity of these books. My current reaction, based on his continued attempt to remove them, is that my initial reaction was right on the mark. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- See the personal insults go flying yet again. He keeps calling me anti-catholic, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I restored the apocrypha that he keeps complaining about once it became disputed. It didn't matter to him and ever since he has called me anti-catholic. These aren't the only personal insults he has used against me. Over the last month I have edited probably about 20 articles, and with the exception of about 3 or 4, he reverted everything I did on them. Even one word changes on articles like Book of Genesis were reverted. On those 3 or 4 exceptions, he reverted my edits but other people stepped in and stopped him. Yes I have a problem with someone who reverts pretty much everything I do. How can I find that acceptable, especially when he never offers to reach a comprise but just calls me fringe and reflexively reverts everything?RomanHistorian (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Even a casual examination of the edit history refutes your claim. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh I can easily pull up everything you have done.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dylan, If you want to get credit for taking a week off, then you should take a week off. The people who are performing the most reverts (yourself, PiCo, RomanHistorian, others..) risk being scrutinized by admins. You made 17 article edits on October 11, and a quick look suggests that *all* of them are reverts. And, it must be said that when an account that is barely a month old is getting into disputes everywhere, it does suggest that you might have a previous history. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ed, the part you got completely right is that there was an unusual number of reverts by me on the 11th. The part you may not be aware of is why. That was the day that RomanHistorian returned from his 3RR block and celebrated by making the following round of reverts:
- 06:54, 11 October 2010 (diff | hist) Frank Lampard (Undid revision 389623954 by Dylan Flaherty (talk)seek consensus)
- 06:54, 11 October 2010 (diff | hist) Songs of Praise (Undid revision 389624206 by Dylan Flaherty (talk) seek consensus)
- 06:52, 11 October 2010 (diff | hist) John the Baptist (seek consensus)
- 06:52, 11 October 2010 (diff | hist) Synoptic Gospels (Undid revision 389827056 by Dylan Flaherty (talk)seek consensus)
- 06:51, 11 October 2010 (diff | hist) Q source (Undid revision 389827305 by Dylan Flaherty (talk) seek consensus)
- 06:50, 11 October 2010 (diff | hist) Abortion debate
- 06:49, 11 October 2010 (diff | hist) Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy (Undid revision 389874043 by Dylan Flaherty (talk) seek consensus)
- 06:48, 11 October 2010 (diff | hist) Historicity of Jesus (Undid revision 389986674 by Dylan Flaherty (talk) seek consensus)
- 06:48, 11 October 2010 (diff | hist) Amazing Grace (2006 film) (Undid revision 389987378 by Dylan Flaherty (talk) Seek consensus)
- I'm sorry I don't know how to copy this with the links, but you can check for yourself. Of the nine reverts, almost half were to articles that he had never edited before, and these were particularly blatant in being unjustified. None of the edit comments were honest, but all sought to make a point by parodying me.
- My reaction to this blatant attack was to try to report it and then revert it. In parallel, he and JJB filed reports accusing me of edit-warring, while I was away from editing and could not defend myself. In hindsight, I cannot avoid the conclusion that he reverted in bad faith and used this to bait me into making a large number of them in one day, for the purpose of getting me blocked. He has since continued to edit both of the closed entries on that edit-warring report page, desperately insisting that I should be blocked forever.
- To clarify, my "history" with RomanHistorian started the day he decided to remove the entire deuterocanon, and while I apologize for any excess reverts I did before I learned about 3RR, I do not apologize for restoring those books that my faiths holds as canonical. My edits on controversial topics such as abortion have been entirely free of edit-warring, while my interactions with RomanHistorian have been nothing but counterproductive. I will note that the distinguishing factor is his presence and let you draw your own conclusions about what this denotes.
- When I come back to these articles, I will voluntarily limit myself to a pair of reverts each day. I politely suggest that RomanHistorian, JJB and Hardyplants do the same. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Each of those was a revert of a recent (legitimate) edit by another editor, and they all used his typical justification (consensus, bias, ect). Dylan made many more reverts over the last few days to other articles but other people had undone his reversions, and a few accused him of edit warring so there was nothing left to correct. Also, that is not a full list of his reverts today, as he reverted an edit I made on Battle of Jericho a couple hours ago, and of course his reversions on Gospel of John triggered this incident. It is pointless for me to try to correct the damage he is doing, so I am just going to keep track of all of his reversions to use the next time he decides to edit war with me.
- I would say he was being disingenuous on the deuterocanon if I didn't think he actually believed what he is saying. I didn't know Catholics viewed those books as being partially canonical (some of those books, like 4 Maccabees, are not viewed by anyone as being partially canonical). I removed them because the article was about the biblical books, not deuterocannoical books. As soon as he told me they were Catholic canon, I restored them myself and never raised another issue over it. My original purpose was to make the article simpler, not to further some anti-catholic agenda. He keeps holding this against me even though I acted completely properly once I knew of the objection. I can't do much when he holds this emotional grudge against me over something I handled properly.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- RomanHistorian, we both know that's not the case. For example, this edit was not a revert on my part. Each time you make a claim that's falsified, it goes to your credibility and motive.
- As for grudges, the fact that you keep urging everyone to permanently block me says a lot, as does your attempt to intimidate me. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Take a closer look. That was a reversion.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm calling your bluff now: what was it a reversion to? Post the link. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Other than Songs of Praise (a mistake on my part it seems) every other case was a reversion. You made a few that were legitimate (like Die Antwoord) and I tried to avoid those. Several (like Q source and Synoptic gospels) were reversions of an edit made moments earlier of a single word. With Historicity of Jesus and John the Baptist you made multiple reverts and appear to have been close to violating 3RR. In both cases, Hardyplants made a small change and that triggered your edit war. Check it yourself.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm calling your bluff now: what was it a reversion to? Post the link. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Take a closer look. That was a reversion.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ed, the part you got completely right is that there was an unusual number of reverts by me on the 11th. The part you may not be aware of is why. That was the day that RomanHistorian returned from his 3RR block and celebrated by making the following round of reverts:
- Dylan, If you want to get credit for taking a week off, then you should take a week off. The people who are performing the most reverts (yourself, PiCo, RomanHistorian, others..) risk being scrutinized by admins. You made 17 article edits on October 11, and a quick look suggests that *all* of them are reverts. And, it must be said that when an account that is barely a month old is getting into disputes everywhere, it does suggest that you might have a previous history. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You keep editing your answer, yet you keep ducking the question. You reverted my edits to Abortion debate, and then you claimed that you were undoing a revert of mine. You said "Take a closer look. That was a reversion." I took a closer look, and it was not a reversion. You lied just now, and then you tried to change the subject. Is this the level of good faith I can expect from you? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am not interested in the details of this dispute. Please take it elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. I won't trouble you anymore. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
New request
Ed, I'd be happy to take your statement of disinterest as polite refusal to vet sources for the ancient-history article or to get involved in my request for advice above, but I did want to let you know I made my own content-mediation request out of the closed mediation request, which is asking for much the same sourcing review that PiCo asked for above, and to ask if you could assist in finding a mediator at that page (and/or a commenter at the RFC). Thank you. JJB 01:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's fine if you want to make a new mediation request, but it would be better to start from scratch. It is unclear whether you are justified in copying over the comments left by editors in the previous request. Better to notify them all, and invite them to participate. I don't know what is required to get a mediator's attention, since that board is so informal, but I bet that User:PhilKnight would know. If you can get no attention anywhere else, try posting at WP:ANI to ask for advice. I hope you have noticed that there is a lot of progress at Talk:Authorship of the Bible. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Problems with user John J. Bulten
Ed, John is becoming increasingly uncooperative and downright bullying in his approach. He refuse to accept the RfC as set out by Doug Weller and wants to impose his own terms instead; and now he's adopting language that's clearly meant to be intimidating. ("So you back down and unanswer simultaneously. EdJohnston told you that if you follow WP:DR everything will come out OK and implying that if you don't there is potential for admin review; and that was his view as opposed to having you leave the topic for a month. If you fail to deal with my proposed changes, or to answer my questions relevant to retaining your text, you are not following WP:DR, and by your silence I may proceed with my best proposal for the texts in accord with bold again. (ADD: If this remains a two-party issue, I may also go to third opinions, which are voluntary mediators rather than selected mediators.) Once again, if the texts are synonymous, why do you prefer yours to mine? JJB 02:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)" - this from the RfC thread) I don't think the RfC process is working. Where can we go next? I'd suggest taking the original dispute over sources to editors with an interest in the subject area, which could work if he agrees, but do you have any ideas? PiCo (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am not planning to sign up as a formal mediator, but I have left a comment at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
BLP/N closures
Ed, I saw your change to my BLP closure. The thing is, I only did what the notice at the top of WP:BLPN explicitly instructed me to do. So: do we need to change the notice, or change the practice? Obviously one of them is incorrect! :) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've left a note at WT:BLPN#Hidden closures no longer used to see if we can change the notice. People who actually read the instructions are a menace :-). EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
request
Can you lock Tea Party Movement for 24 hours? There's an edit war heating up over the categories. thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Some categories have been added and removed three times, though by different people. Several of those reverting have begun a discussion on Talk. This helps a little. If you are still concerned, I suggest asking at RFPP or even ANI. I like to see references to establish the correctness of any categories that might be disputed, but I am sorry to observe that such references are often lacking in political articles. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Very sorry
Thank you for your kind warning. Throw it in the Fire (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- And please check my most recent edits. I am simply trying to balance obvious conflict of interest with usefulness of the links. Best, Throw it in the Fire (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk. An account which is completed devoted to the removal of links, many of which seem to be useful, will attract suspicion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I wasn't aware that I should be leaving messages on talk pages. I will do so now!Throw it in the Fire (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes
I am puzzled by the warning TFD and I got because of our edits to the article Mass killings under Communist regimes. It seems to me that TFD and I have been unfailingly polite, and have tried our best to bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards and in line with standard academic sources. We have spend many hours trying to reach a consensus on the talk page.
But what puzzles me most is that we were not told of the complaint against us in advance of the warning, nor were we given a chance to reply. My main interest is in mathematics, and rather than risk a ban, I will stop editing Mass killings under Communist regimes. But I would prefer to continue trying to improve Wikipedia. Can you tell me what line we are accused of crossing -- something specific rather than a litany of general complaints?
Rick Norwood (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- See the discussions at User talk:The Four Deuces#Warning and User talk:Jrtayloriv. As I told Jrtayloriv, "Articles under a 1RR are especially sensitive. Somehow you managed to make one of the reverts in a string of edits which can be viewed as an edit war, on an article subject to Digwuren. These things happen." The fact that the Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over this article makes a difference. There should perhaps be an advice page for people thinking of editing under a 1RR, since such edits can have unpredictable consequences when a dispute is going on. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notifications
Hello, Ed. When you notify a user of discretionary sanctions, could you also log it at the relevant case page. This helps admins at WP:AE when reviewing a report who need to determine whether the user was aware of the case in question.
I logged your notifications to Rendahl (talk · contribs) and Poznan (talk · contribs) at the WP:ARBCC case page for you.
CIreland (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Cosmetic Bot changes
Hi,
I write to you because I read an old post of yours [51] in which you said that a low-priority task (a cosmetic change) surely is not worth a separate edit. But histories are overcrowded by bot edits like this [52], i.e changing [[Dish|dishes]] to [[dish]]es, or by citation formatting, or by capitalization of certain template keywords. Those are all less-then-cosmetic changes, because they appear only on the script, not in the article. If you add to these all the bot edits that add the links to Siamese or Afrikaans pages, and the do/undo sequences, you understand that the page histories are became unreadable: in ten edits, perhaps only one is significant. And is very difficult to follow, in the history of an article, the temporal evolution of certain statements.
What can be done to solve this? One proposal could be that the bots, instead of editing continuously, write the changes to be made on a database, and apply them collectively, once a month, say. But this would only attenuate the problem, because the vandalize/undo sequences would still be there. So one can propose that the clever wiki programmers add options to the "view history" and to the "compare revisions" pages which exclude bot edits and do/undo sequences (similar to the ones that already appear on "my watchlist").
I have no idea if these proposals are realistic or not. Nor I know to whom they should be advanced, and if it is correct that I bother you with them (I am relatively new), but I read your statement about cosmetic edits, so here I am. Thanks. --GianniG46 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- The example you give is the article on Angular resolution. Surely there aren't too many bot edits there. I looked at the dishes edit and I agree it seems too trivial. This was made by FrescoBot. If I had time to look into this I would check to see whether that bot's edits are useful. If you are not happy with that particular bot, you could write to the operator. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. In the meantime, I found the relevant Bot policy statement: "Cosmetic changes should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time.", so I am talking with the operator.
But I think the second question is more relevant: is it possible to clean page histories? My Angular resolution example was just the last occurrence in the pages I watch. But if you look at the history of other pages, e.g. this, you understand what I mean by unreadability. There the problem is vandalism. I have counted 40 vandalize/undo sequences out of 50 edits.
So I'd like to know to whom I could address my proposals about hiding less significant edits in page histories. --GianniG46 (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- You complain about junk in the page history.
- in the Silicon article, I believe that semiprotection is justified. When I get back to my regular computer, I will look into that.
- the bot policy should be enough to keep histories from being cluttered with unnecessary edits.
- Bot edits are usually marked as Minor. You can set up your watch list to exclude minor edits.
- You could offer your general concern for discussion at WT:BOTS.
- EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Semiprotected again (silicon)
The last six-month period of semiprotection expired on May 20. For some time after that, this article was reasonably quiet, but the IP vandalism seems to have picked up a lot since mid-August. The page history now seems to be dominated by vandalism and reverts thereof. If anyone feels the semiprotection should be modified, please let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I hope sprotection should be the default on all chemical element articles, just as it is for solar system planets. The school vandalism is horrible, if not. SBHarris 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I've also semiprotected Boron in the past, and it appears to be due for more of the same. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Egyptian mathematics
Dear Ed, your post: Hello Milogardner. Please see the result of the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner. A community ban has been enacted. You are banned from editing articles about Egyptian mathematics, broadly construed. You may not contribute on their talk pages either. Your options for contesting the ban are listed at WP:UNBAN. The ban may be enforced by blocking if necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The ban has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
is not understood on several levels. Thank you for considering to clarify one or two of the following issues.
I have a series of questions related to false allegations that original research, and other issues, have been posted by me --- after a recent agreement was reached. My sense of this case strongly suggests that a 'band' of Wikipedia editors, very knowledgeable concerning Wikipedia policies (and politics), have wished to silence my voice for several years. Recently this group has put together trumped up charges against valid scholarly discussions, titling them as original research created by me. The scholarly positions that I post differ in serious ways from the 'band' and off-Wikipedia group leaders, Jim Ritter and Annette Imhausen, with the surrogate leader Anneka Bart posting to Wikipedia, consciously omitting, rarely with malice, well documented Egyptian math controversies that remain unresolved.
It is sad that Egyptian mathematics is filled with controversies. Wikipedia need not acknowledge them all. But the main ones need to cited, offering two points of view. For example, yhe RMP 2/n table offers the largest controversy: how and why did Egyptian scribes convert 2/n and many rational numbers to concise unit fraction series? Gillings spent large sections of "Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaoh's" attempting to resolve aspects of the problem. Read how this group discusses the topic. Where are the controversial aspects of the issue?
It should also be noted that, of the major US universities, only Harvard has re-authorized filling an Egyptian math chair held by Dr. Reisner. The chair was empty for almost 50 years. World-wide there are no formal university Egyptian math chairs. Only Ad Hoc groups roam the internet and Wikipedia, offering a university conference from time to time (one was held in 2009, advertised as interdisciplinary) ... only one group was invited. It was an algorithmic groups headed by Ritter and Imhausen. I can cite several books that this group had published that shows little interest for solving hieratic Egyptian math controversies. The group's focus skips over hieratic math to demotic math texts, and Babylonian algorithms, that may or may not have dominated the Ancient Near East. I have no interest in the demotic texts. Thus hieratic math offers few conflict with the group's main algorithmic thesis.
May the algorithmic group settle down and discuss algorithms as they wish. I'd be pleased to read scholarly views of hieratic algorithms. There are a small number of them. A cooling off period for myself and this group, say 30 days would be appropriate. Currently, an indefinite time period given only to myself seems out of order, and unjustified based on the Wikipedia and scholarly facts.
Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- You've already started to edit as an IP, that was not a good move. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Doug, your are not correct. I did not log onto Wikipedia until this morning. What IP post are you talking about. Check the time and date before you raise your voice. Milogardner (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at Roger Davies talk page, it is possible he edited as an IP before he logged on and wasn't aware of the ban.
Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for looking a facts. Jumping to opinions gets anyone into trouble. Milogardner (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Milo, your side of the case has been heard, since you participated in WP:Requests for comment/Milogardner. The decision at WP:ANI is what I reported to you.
I participated in a lynching. I agreed to a set of conditions that were followed. Adding conditions after the fact that were not agreed to ... seems to be one aspect --- the central one ... of this case. Milogardner (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
If you object to the topic ban, the only steps open to you now are those listed at WP:UNBAN. Of course, you are still welcome to edit articles which are unrelated to Egyptian mathematics. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will do that ... after collecting a set of facts. What is the scope and duration of the ban? Broad brush strokes do not paint a picture. So far I have only read a series of opinions ... with no set of agreed to conditions broken ... best regards. Milogardner (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Milogardner (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Milo, Doug is probably referring to this edit by an IP at Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, which appears to be you. He is theorizing that you made this edit as an IP before you were aware of the topic ban. The ban is indefinite, and applies to all edits by the person behind the User:Milogardner account to Egyptian mathematics, whether logged in or using an IP. The ban went into effect at 18:49 UTC on 6 October. The ban is quite specific, and it is an official action by the Wikipedia community. If you still think of it as only 'broad brush strokes' I hope you will explain further. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to explain. The Wikipedia community that you cite have been protesting "too much" over the intellectual content, or lack thereof, of Egyptian mathematics (concerning hekat division methods and scribal uses of rational numbers) reported by scholars. On one level I thank the group for protesting in a vigorous manner. I kept asking myself, what is bothering them? My personal study of Egyptian math scholarly citations has required me to go back and research Griffith, Spalinger and other scholars (currently I am reading a 500 page book in German). Today, Griffith and Spalinger's open minded discussions of a khar scaled to 5, 10, 16 or 20 hekat as fresh air, are highly respected, compared to single-minded 20 hekat views presented by the Wikipedia group.
The Wikipedia editor group set out to silence my voice, and won in the Wikipedia arena. But did the group's understanding of technical Wikipedia issues (which is far above mine) win an Egyptian math war? My research of the scholarly aspects of this dispute will continue. Going into this unexpected Wiki-war I respected Clagett as an editor, like yourself and all Wikipedia Editors. Editors in any venue are required to only cite secondary sources. When scholarly errors are recorded in secondary sources, and muddle historical facts (as has taken place in the Egyptian math literature) scholarly disputes based on best arguments can not be easily resolved. This is the meta context of this Wiki-war, that I see, defining an issue that neither side can win in the short term, possible ten years or more.
You may wish to consider a longer term aspects of this 4,000 year old issue by reading scholarly references of pertinent scribal data sets, reviewed by scholars including my footnotes. The info is posted in a general narrative to the Math forum:
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7231924&tstart=0
It is not important to note that I am a published author in Egyptian math. To the Wikipedia group of editors the fact that I am familiar with scholars and the raw data in this field offers only signs of original research. Knowing less about a topic seems best to the Wikipedia group. Yet, none in the Wikipedia group wish to discuss aspects of a hekat scaling dispute that dates back to Griffith. I only consider my personal understanding of Egyptian math as background, after our Wikipedia agreement was reached. Today, and in the future, until the scholarly dispute is resolved, I will defer to Griffith, Spalinger and other scholars on serious open scholarly disputes.
Thank you very much for considering these smaller paint brush strokes bringing into focus one 4,000 year old hekat scaled picture, defining a scholarly dispute that will last for several more years. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what is meant by 'community' here. It is not a small group of editors editing AE mathematics. Some of us never or virtually never edited such articles. It's Wikipedia editors commenting on your behavior in general. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Doug, I wish that your analysis was correct. Given that you have requested input to correct Egyptian metrology ... you are not one of the disinterested third parties. I personally know few in the 'community' that signed on concerning my proposed 'rude' Egyptian math behavior. Sadly, your sense of the greater Wikipedia community may be true, and it may not be true. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Milo, topic bans issued by a consensus at WP:ANI are official community actions and they can be enforced by admins. See Wikipedia:Banning policy for how topic bans work. See WP:RESTRICT for a list of the bans currently in force. If you want to know who else signed on to the topic ban, besides Dougweller, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ed, I understand the intent, and legalese, of the ban. I have no interest in researching any of the Wikipedia community group that signed on to this issue. Doug's obvious conflict of interest popped into my head. There may be no individual consciences involved in this case. Intellectual issues offer my defense. Scribes used quotient (Q) and remainder (R) statements. Leaving Egyptian math topics on Wikipedia, at this time, leaves several discussions in serious disarray. Scholarly discussions of scribal conversions of rational numbers in RMP 2/n tables used red auxiliary numbers calculated concise unit fraction series applied by scribes that solved algebra, geometry, and classes of hekat problems in arithmetic progressions, economics and mathematics problems (Ahmes Book I,II and III). Current Wikipedia posts stress minimalist 20th century scholarly approaches (ie. Otto Neugebauer per : http://books.google.com/books?id=JVhTtVA2zr8C&pg=PA71&dq=clagett,+Egyptian&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false citing additive math and algorithms) that overlook deeper scholarly discussions beginning with 2/n table issues. I wish every Wikipedia Egyptian math poster and editor the best. Please look for "needle in the hay stack" scholarly papers that have broken scribal non-additive rational number codes. One 2006 study reported (6400/64)/n = Q/64 + [(5R)/n]ro. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
My studies continue. A request will be sent to Wikipedia editors to consider this 2005 PhD thesis [53] to remove a premature ban when the book is fully understood. The author concluded that 1/10 of a hekat was scaled to 480 ccm, a modern unit of measure. I may have no problem with this aspect of her study. The author's information, read by my poor German, may not have discussed scribal formulas in details that have been available by scholarly papers for 110 years (since Schack-Schackenberg). Wikipedia scholars are recommended to read this book and determine for yourselves the circumstances that Ahmes and other scribes recorded cubit, cubit^2, cubit^3, khar, and khar/20 = 100-hekat or 400-hekat volume calculations. My understanding is that the author concluded that 400-hekat and quadrupple hekats offers a proper scaling without citing complete scribal calculations. I am looking for archaeological and intellectual proof of the author's conclusion via scribal conversions of (6400/64)/n in RMP 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 recorded in 100-quadruple hekat units, or 100-hekat units, and other hard facts. The 400-quadruple hekat hypothesis may require one quadruple hekat to be scaled as (256/64) and 100-quadruple hekat to be written as (25600/64), scribal facts that report one hekat unity as (64/64) in five Akhmim Wooden Tablet proofs. The author may have reported these facts in her thesis. At this time the author's discussion of quadruple hekat seems not to rigorously consider well defined 100-hekat and single hekat divisions recorded as (64/64)/n = Q/64 + (5R/n)ro two-part quotient and remainder statements in RMP 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84, and the Akhmim Wooden Papyrus (published by Hana Vymazalova in 2002, and another author in 2006). Are there additional aspects of this 4,000 year old story line reported by other scholars? Griffith and Spalinger (1990), for example, offer compelling discussions that a quadruple hekat may not have been a valid scribal unit. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I added brackets around your Google Books link (above). EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed. Milogardner (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:USPP thanks you! And hopes you come back!
EdJohnston, thanks for contributing to article assessment in WP:USPP. Your continued involvement would be very appreciated. Your comments on one of the articles you assessed made me realize a big implication of the research on the project itself: the assessment team not only evaluates article quality, but because it is such a conscientious group of people, assessment actually improves the articles through direct impact or by providing good insights to the active editors of articles, so thanks for your input both on the project page and on the article talk pages. There is a second assessment request posted. There will be weekly updates about the research for this project posted here, look for the first one tomorrow. The next assessment request will come in early November. There is a lot of expertise and discussion about article quality happening in the project, so if you have any thoughts on the metric, or any ideas keeping project research exciting please let me know. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Assessment update
Hi EdJohnston/Archive 18 -- Amy Roth is now out on maternity leave (she had a healthy baby girl this weekend!) so I'll be filling in for a couple of months. (I'm LiAnna Davis, the Public Policy Initiative's communications associate.) I'd like to get the second assessment done this week if possible -- I've made some edits to give you direct links to the versions we'd like you to assess. Please let me know if you can't finish it by this weekend! Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for all your help! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 05:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.
John Bulten
Ed: John J Bulten has opened a case at the admin noticeboard asking for help - he's saying I'm a disruptive editor, but in fact I think he's just increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress on the editing dispute at History of ancient Israel and Judah. If you have the time and inclination you might like to look in. PiCo (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
AN3 form
I've finished it, please see User:Netalarm/AN3 thanks. Netalarmtalk 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work. What would be the possibility of pre-filling the box with:
- User:Username reported by [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]] (Result: ) ? Having actual links in the header line is very helpful to admins reviewing the case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- The second one would be easy, but the first one would result in the box displaying "User:USER", asking the user to fill in the information between the brackets. This may cause confusion, so I’ll see if there’s an easier way to do it. Netalarmtalk 18:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's up now. All the user has to do is replace USER with the username they are reporting and fill in the page that shows up. Anything else that needs to be changed? Netalarmtalk 05:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I would still hope to see [[User:{{REVISIONUSER}}]] so that the submitter's name is linked. The 'subst' might not be needed, since the template 'runs' before the page is saved. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's up now. All the user has to do is replace USER with the username they are reporting and fill in the page that shows up. Anything else that needs to be changed? Netalarmtalk 05:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The second one would be easy, but the first one would result in the box displaying "User:USER", asking the user to fill in the information between the brackets. This may cause confusion, so I’ll see if there’s an easier way to do it. Netalarmtalk 18:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- User:Username reported by [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]] (Result: ) ? Having actual links in the header line is very helpful to admins reviewing the case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. The subst: is there because without it, the reporting user would change with every revision. Now, that wouldn't be good, right? :p Could you start a discussion on using this or something? Thanks. Netalarmtalk 06:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thought we could look around for a beta-tester, i.e. somebody who submits frequently at 3RR to see what they think. Checking your latest version, I notice that it puts User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} into the edit summary line, which shows up in the edit history, 'subst' and all. See history of User:Netalarm/Sandbox. Then I notice for the first time your use of a template to organize the field information. Cute! If the name of the person reported is being fed into the template anyway, why not leave the subject field blank and have the template generate a line like == [[User:Foo]] reported by .. == as the first line of the submitted text! That's what the existing 3RR reporter tool does. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, that was what I was hoping to do, but the template seems to have difficulty understanding things when =s are involved. I'll see if adding 1= and other things can solve that. Netalarmtalk 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Done With modifications. Now by clicking on the button, the user will be directed to fill in a template that will automatically create the header. Alpha/beta testing time. Netalarmtalk 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- The page being reported could be a user talk, an article talk, a template etc. I think Arlen22 (talk · contribs) may be the person who noticed this. Some ideas:
- Tell people to use the new form only for articles.
- Make the template smart, so if 'Talk:Foo' is entered as the name of the page in dispute, it will do the right thing. (Use Template:lt instead of Template:la)', etc.
- Create more than one submission button. a button for articles, one for article talk, etc. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- The page being reported could be a user talk, an article talk, a template etc. I think Arlen22 (talk · contribs) may be the person who noticed this. Some ideas:
- Actually, that was what I was hoping to do, but the template seems to have difficulty understanding things when =s are involved. I'll see if adding 1= and other things can solve that. Netalarmtalk 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I changed it so it also supported other namespaces after Arlen22 submitted one on a user page. By doing so, Templates, Categories, Books, etc. can also be reported there. If the report is on an userpage, it'll most likely be vandalism. I'm sure the instructions can be changed later on to dictate what may be reported there. Regarding the second point, the template already uses pagelinks to link it. Is there a specific reason why lt would be better than page links? (note: I changed it to page links earlier today). I see you have very high expectations for this :P. Are you available on IRC? Netalarmtalk 01:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can you say more about the support for other namespaces? None of the headers in User:Netalarm/AN3 that refer to other namespaces look right to me. I am inexperienced with IRC; can you use Google Talk? EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, those were created before I added it. See User:Netalarm/AN3#User:Netalarm_reported_by_User:Netalarm_.28Result:.29. The links now display. There are a few more detailed things I want to go over, hence why I wanted to talk live. I'll send you an email. Netalarmtalk
Hello again Netalarm. I was about to write to Slakr to see if he could enhance 3rr.php to make a complete 3RR report, but I discovered that it ALREADY does the right thing! Please look at my latest submission at User:Netalarm/AN3 and see what you think. [54]. If my discovery is correct, then we should just modify the header at WP:AN3 to steer people to the correct usage of Slakr's script. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Corticopia
Dear Ed. I'm just leaving this message here as an archive to set record of the following. Corticopia is again using multiple anonymous IP addresses, as we know, very likely to avoid scrutinity. He's currently very active in the subjects we already know (edit pattern): Canada-related articles, North America related articles, Turkey, Europe, Australia, Sci-fi articles, Astronomy and so on... I just discovered the following IPs with that edit pattern (because he "created" a "North American project").
While he's not "doing any harm" right now, based in my experience I predict he's going to, with some tricks of course. I personally think he's got already several registered accounts, that will "jump in" in the recentrly created North America project.
I just leave this message to set record of what I've discovered in hope it can be some kind of contention.
- 76.66.199.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) <- Most recently used
- 76.66.193.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 76.66.193.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 76.66.200.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
All of the previous listed IPs exhibit the same IP pool, same city, and most importantly the same edit pattern. Also all of them aknowledged being the same person [55] [56] [57]. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Uhmm... remember how I told you User:Chipmunkdavis was Corticopia but the CheckUser said he had another IP? (something that can easily be done with a VPN). Well... very interestingly IP 76.66.200.95 who never edited the article East Timor before, does this to a discussion down there, where Chipmunkdavis was involved [58]. His edit summary was "close 3 year old poll - superceded by new poll", which clearly means the anonymous IP was well aware of the on going discussion... coincidence? I don't think so. It could also mean that maybe one of the other users is also the same person. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another "coincidence"... IP 76.66.199.238 edited only one time the talk Flag of Burma [59] and talks as if he was well aware of the article evolution. Again, Chipmunkdavis also edited there [60] [61]. Both of them making the same argument about the colors of the flag. Read carefully. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that the checkusers would look into this unless there is some new misbehavior. For instance, edit warring by one of the IPs or registered accounts. Or maybe the IPs would line up in support of one of the registered editors in a disputed AfD or talk page discussion. Your statement was that 'he's not doing any harm right now.' If multiple accounts that are actually socks join the North American project, that would be an unwise move because it would simplify catching them. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Another "coincidence"... IP 76.66.199.238 edited only one time the talk Flag of Burma [59] and talks as if he was well aware of the article evolution. Again, Chipmunkdavis also edited there [60] [61]. Both of them making the same argument about the colors of the flag. Read carefully. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Section Blanking
Hi, you had given User:Varma0440 a second warning for section blanking here. But he has again resumed his vandalism, apparent from this edit. Please advise me what to do next. Thanks. Axxn (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Varma0440 has now been indef blocked. It is possible he will use IPs to continue the war, based on past experience. If you notice any IP working on these articles that you think could be him, please let me know. Semiprotection is possible. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Murder of Aristotelis Goumas
Please see Murder of Aristotelis Goumas. It is clearly a hate pusher. Apart for the fact that the case is not finished (still under investigation and not yet judged) this is a totally biased and unacceptable article for the nationalistic agenda that it pushes. Please note that there are many Albanians killed in Greece by extremists and even police forces (just do a google check by yourself), but Albanians editors have refrained themselves writing about them to avoid this nationalistic heat. Please intervene before this thing gets bigger. Aigest (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like User:Black Kite took care of this one. There has also been a discussion at BLPN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Grey boxing
Well, you can just click edit here, and then copy and paste the code really
|
Teramo
I'd like to make you notice the total fall of any politeness by the Teramo guy; check talk:Teramo for his latest deeds. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any way to forbid that user to insult me and Wikipedia endlessly? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have used the {{rpa}} template to remove some comments from Talk:Teramo which I consider to be personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Andranikpasha
Hello EdJohnston. Could you please take a look at this [62]? Thanks Tuscumbia (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Queen Anne
I've made the edit but it is one you could have made yourself. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is a contested situation so I'm trying to keep my admin uninvolvement. I didn't know if you would agree, but I'm glad you did. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
3RR report
Thanks for your interest. According to guidelines, one should avoid getting directly involved in these things, so I didn't. However, if that is your advice, then I will consider it. However, I am disturbed that you cannot see the string of POV editing and ill tempered feuding going on. However, thanks for your time. I'll make my view known on group then delete from my watchlist.Monstrelet (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- We encourage editors to explain their concern on the article's talk page before taking the issue to admins. You should try to persuade the editors working on that page first. Even if you think it's hopeless, your discussion there could help us to understand the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Iksus2009
Hi Thanks for the warning of the user, but the user still does not get WP:BEP. I am disappointed with the small slap on the wrist. I find his statements violating WP:BEP and harrassment. Here are some new statements: [64] after he was warned.
| Extended discussion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Note the statements: A) "people, let us not forget that we are not in a place like Iran where disagreements with our opinions are banned." B) "It was charged against me that by mentioning the suspected ethnicity of the editors of this page I am somehow attacking them personally. This is a silly charge masquerading as a criticism of a discrimination of some sort. Come on: even judges are expected to recuse themselves from cases if there is a possibility of a conflict of interest. A Persian national who just happens to want to deemphasize Nizami's Azeri link to the benefit of the Persian link is a legitimate target for such charges of conflict-of-interest. " Emphasizing the user's nationality, country and etc., and trying to harrass them is not legitimate wikipedia editorshiop. For example, if it was a forum, I can respond like a forum to such people. But this is supposed to be Wikipedia. Either people play by the rules or they should not be editing. If there is going to be just another warning instead of some action by admins, then eventually these things will degrade to all users. Admins needs to take of such users. His first edits should have been enough for a ban: [65] When one group is doing it here , admins need to stop it at first incidence by a severe block, so that other users do not do the same. Disciplince works. Sure a person can take insults once, twice, but there is a limiting point when admins do not do anything about it, then things escalate. That is why admins like Moreschi and etc. have left, as Wikipedia is taking such abusive users too lightly. Please note my previous complaint here: [66]. And please note my new complain. I believe a block and a topic ban from the article is a legitimate request. The article has had 8 or so archive pages, because of arguments, and a concensus was reached. This user has been told of that, but he is ignoring it, and then attacking the backgorund of other users. Wikipedia is not about making fun of other people's nationality. Thank you and I hope legitimate Arbcomm Armenian/Azerbaijan violations are given, rather than a 3 hour ban. Because the user has already poisened the atmosphere with his words, and it is hard to be professional with him, given his previous comments. He was warned, and he failed to read the warnings, and still continued in his abusive manner. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston (May I call you Ed? It is easier. I admit my name is not easy) Well, I admit, you were right that the user has crossed the path of no return and as you said: "I believe this user is rushing headlong toward an indef block, but we need to give him a chance to get there on his own. " He wasn't listed under the AA names and has not been put under AA sanctions. So admins are free to take out of AA measure. He was warned once by Nishkid64, and once today. I warned him in my last comment about WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA in the talkpage of the article. But as an admin, you can take actions. Here is part of the latest comments[67]: " So with this in mind, here is the promised political opinion: I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism, to talk some sense to them, to bring them up to date with the modern realities of the world (from being stuck in a time period three thousand years past), and, and I think Azerbaijan has taken the right political step by aligning itself with US and Israel, because it correctly recognizes in Iran a danger: its relgious fundamentalism hungry for infecting the nearby, and its chauvinism hungry for domination." . And this too: " Since I am already going to be banned anyways (in an Iranian style censorship. Well, at least I will not be whipped ... I hope, or be issued a Fatwa against). ". This was just a portion of the latest comments. The user's acount is 1 years old and he has been warned multiple times today and last year. Do you really expect that such a user can be compromised with in the talkpage? Are other users supposed to forget all of his hatred and act like nothing happened and continue discussion? The user is asking to get banned as he states too and you predicted: "Ok, now you can go ahead and ban me. I plan not to use Wikipedia anyways. I think the Britannica subscription price is worth it, which I have realized thanks to this exchange. So thank you! As they say, you get what you pay for.", "I have no intent of wasting my time any more than I already have.".. etc. Well I think you can give him the oppurtunity of not wasting his time and the time of other users (for complaining to admins). It is really a waste of my time that I had to think about and deal with such a user, I was getting whooped in ping pong because I was thinking about his comments. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Hi, Are you suggesting that such user can go on other topics? Or such forum/hatred talks do not spill over to other topics? I believe you are being too forgiving. We need some admins with some seriousness. If someone knows they can get away with so much crap before they are banned, then that would be disastarous for Wikipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC) |
This one was worst
Here is part of the latest comments[68]: " So with this in mind, here is the promised political opinion: I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism, to talk some sense to them, to bring them up to date with the modern realities of the world (from being stuck in a time period three thousand years past), and, and I think Azerbaijan has taken the right political step by aligning itself with US and Israel, because it correctly recognizes in Iran a danger: its relgious fundamentalism hungry for infecting the nearby, and its chauvinism hungry for domination." . And this too: " Since I am already going to be banned anyways (in an Iranian style censorship. Well, at least I will not be whipped ... I hope, or be issued a Fatwa against). ". This was just a portion of the latest comments. The user's acount is 1 years old and he has been warned multiple times today and last year. Do you really expect that such a user can be compromised with in the talkpage? Are other users supposed to forget all of his hatred and act like nothing happened and continue discussion? The user is asking to get banned as he states too and you predicted: "Ok, now you can go ahead and ban me. I plan not to use Wikipedia anyways. I think the Britannica subscription price is worth it, which I have realized thanks to this exchange. So thank you! As they say, you get what you pay for.", "I have no intent of wasting my time any more than I already have.".. etc. Well I think you can give him the oppurtunity of not wasting his time and the time of other users (for complaining to admins). It is really a waste of my time that I had to think about and deal with such a user, I was getting whooped in ping pong because I was thinking about his comments. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Comment
Since Martintg removed my comment from his talk page, I will repost it here:
It's not just Martintg's participation in unblock discussions, but also his failure to disengage (even after a block) from mainspace POV disputes in the EE topic area, as I tried to explain here. The edit I mentioned seems to be a clear violation of Martintg's topic ban and similar to the edits he was blocked for before. Offliner (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)