User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 22

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.

←

Rms ARE closure

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

~~Hi. Thanks for officially closing out the matter. Do you plan to do a closure synopsis (I don't know exactly what it's called)? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)~~

Oops I see you did it already. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again. I wanted to explain that while I was trying to add the above question, I got two edit conflicts, and by the time I posted the question you had already done the ARE closure synopsis (or whatever it is called). I have dial up and my computer's slow anyway. I had to manually delete the actual sample of the synopsis as I was unable to find a way to strike it using the regular markups (<s></s>). I only added it as I did not know what terminology to use to describe it and wanted to show you. (I am sure you have noticed or will notice the transactions on your edit history). Also, the phraseology I used was not meant to be a suggestion of how you would be wording it, just my example. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I would like to ask you a question. If you could see your way to emailing me when you have the chance (I updated my Preferences), I'd greatly appreciate it. I would do so but your userpage does not indicate emailing options, unless I am missing something. If you elect not to do so I understand. I hope I am not violating any Wikipedia regulation by making this request. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Per your request, I sent you a mail. The 'e-mail this user' link is in the Toolbox at left, hidden by default on the Vector skin, but easily found in Monobook. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

blocking Routerone and John Foxe

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Routerone (talk · contribs)
John Foxe (talk · contribs)

I'm curious why you chose to block these users, considering the edit warring was very stale. It seems to be more punitive than protective, can you exposit on your rationale a bit? tedder (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's a case of long-term warring, the passage of time means less. The fact that Foxe hasn't reverted for 24 hours is not a good prediction that the troubles are over on this article. He was properly notified of the 3RR report and has edited since the notice, but has not replied at the board. Do you think full protection would have been the best response? EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to lean towards full protection, but you are right, it should be seen through the lens of long-term warring, not a specific incident. I think there is a case to be made for blocking the two users and a case to be made against it- no worries. I just wanted to hear some more rationale- thanks! tedder (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Routerone

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not going to adjust anything, but I was curious as to why the block you gave out was so short. Given his block history for precisely this issue, I would have probably gone for either one month or indefinite.—Kww(talk) 11:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the block could have been longer. No objection if you want to change it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Helder Ferreira

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

You mean reverting this edit. But it was obvoius vandalism for me. User Schweinee restored this rubbish info without providing any reference.--Oleola (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree to take a break from the article for seven days.--Oleola (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:uw-sanctions

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I need some advice from you, please have a look:[1], I had a big and tedious argument with user:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ(Dungane) over Boxer Rebellion. It will take forever to read through it, but basically, I was advocating implementation of WP Neutrality, and he was:

“

what I want is for an admin to make clear any kind of unsubstantiated fringe conspiracy theory pushing involving ad hominem attacks of marxism, black panthers, communists, or the chinese government/chinese textbooks is forbidden as off topic on the talk page of the Boxer Rebellion article,ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

”

User Dungane had written more than 10,000 words of argument, mostly consist of personal attacks against me and user John Smith's, and just refuse to calm down to join me on discussion on how to implement WP rules. Since no admin had even care to make any statement on this ANI, let alone any decision, I hereby come here to seek your advice. Arilang ^talk 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would you mind to reopen this SPI? Another POV-pushing sock of his has recently trolled WT:Norway again. Thank you, Eisfbnore ^talk 11:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

MB case at AE

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Ed, I replied on my talk page. Could you please answer me? Angel670 talk 16:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you check it again pls. Angel670 talk 16:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I provided clarification. Please check. Angel670 talk 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I answered your questions. Cheers, Angel670 talk 20:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Indirect Accusation?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I hope that your lengthy paragraph concerning Marshall Bagramyan was not an indirect accusation towards me.[2] I clearly outlined the non-neutral websites used for the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre article and made numerous inquiries concerning the self-published book by Leitzinger(which contains the report by van der Leeuw). You will notice I waited a week for clarification concerning the Leitzinger book and it wasn't until I made a motion to remove the non-neutral websites from the article did anyone seem interested in the discussion
I clearly indicated that the non-neutral sources fall under Questionable sources section(being unpublished websites). This was what I posted on the talk page:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1.the material is not unduly self-serving;
2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This was categorically ignored.
I, personally, do not have any pre-conceived notions as to whether this was a massacre or not. Whereas, statements such by:

NovaSkola, "I agree with Azerbaijani users as Massacre is happened and there is no way of denying it.". Reeks of nationalism and racism without bringing anything useful to the discussion. Most likely some off-wiki canvassing.
Neftchi, "Kansas I certainly hope that you're not here for some kind of revenge against me for my removal of Armenian source in NK war article.". A silly accusation of "revenge" concerning the NK war article that I have never edited!!!
Neftchi, "For example, if you google "Armenian terrorism" you get hundreds of hits from academic sources, magazines, books, etc. Yet availability of these sources did not stop people from deleting the article on Armenian terrorism, although the information about it is overwhelming.". What exactly does this have to do with the article? Nothing. Simply a ploy to divert attention away from non-neutral sources by attacking a certain ethnic group(ie. "Armenian terrorism").
Neftchi, "You guys did ignore my comment about abundance of sources on Armenian terrorism and denial of the fact that this term and reality exists, yet you claim the opposite on this talk page.". Another attempt to divert the discussion into an ethnic dispute.

None of these statements did anything to address the numerous non-neutral, and in most cases Azerbaijani government websites/sources.
IF, I am on a side, then you should check out the sXXt storm that was caused when I used Cambridge and Oxford as references stating the Orontids were Persian! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My remark can hardly be seen as criticism of you since you didn't participate in the AE. I would welcome any civil discussion of the quality of the sourcing. The complaint about MB seemed to be narrowly addressed to the assertion that he used some biased language in describing a source. In my attempt to negotiate with Angel670, who filed the complaint, I was hoping to start a wider discussion and find out what sources ought to be reliable. If you have any ideas for how such a discussion might take place, I would be glad to hear them. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know

Since it's kind of related, you can preview Tofig Kocharli's book, which has been translated into English as Armenian Deception: Historical Information, on Google Books here and decide for yourself on whether his work can pass off as a scholarly source. In my opinion, I don't think generalized phrases like "the degree of Armenian deception is limitless" (bottom of p. 3) are the words of a serious historian. Just some food for thought.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bakground info

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello EdJohnston, there is some background info related to previous AE and me, an of-wiki canvassing/meatpuppeting cable has been revealed, and at least one time in the past attempts have been made to get rid of me trough enforcement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And also, both Sean and Boris are involved in Arab-Israeli conflict articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. - BorisG (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

SD, thanks for the correction about Boris and Sean. I updated my comment at AE. If you are trying to get attention for any off-wiki campaign, either find an on-wiki way to describe the problem in some way that doesn't break any rules, or go through Arbcom. Another option is to ask a checkuser what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I have sent you a mail, I also need your mail to send you more as explained in the message. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment on my talk page

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm closing it down now, but I wanted to thank you first. I am pretty sick of Wikipedia right now, but I am grateful for wonderful people like you whose work keeps the whole project ticking. I don't feel like doing a clean start or any start, so my style should not be a problem. betsythedevine (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Theodosius Dobzhansky

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yes, this article could use considerable expansion. I am not in a position to make a major effort at this time. The Ayala obituary is good. There are two versions, one in the Annual Review of Genetics, the other in the Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy; I believe both are online. You could use these as a basis for expansion. MayerG (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:BelloWello

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In case you weren't familiar with his history, BelloWello has four prior blocks on a previous account, three of them for edit warring, and had been topic banned (from an area unrelated to the current topic) for his poor interactions. Your weeklong block is relatively generous in light of his history, though not inappropriately so. Feel free to email me if you have any questions. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Email sent. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you close this?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Did you really intend to close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive700#Admin_closure_needed? It seems as if two different ANI issues about Southern Adventist University may have been conflated. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It was User:Mathsci who put the closure box on that ANI discussion, not me. Please ask him. I have not looked into whatever that discussion was, and it was not part of the AN3 complaint. Do you think that the Wedgwood Trio has enough notability to survive as a stand-alone article? EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Undid my edit per your request, but I still have questions

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, I'm not sure I count as an experienced wikipedia editor yet, but I'm begining to feel like I'm getting there :)

You suggested I undo an edit I had made to an 'arbitration archive' page. Presume you mean this ^[1] ? - sorry for the clunky formatting I've never tried linking to a 'diff' before. As you can see I have followed your suggestion (I think? I hope this is what you meant - I don't think I've been to any other arbitration page before).

The reason I wrote the comment (now removed) is that I arrived on that arbitration page by trying to find more editting guidlines for how to edit things relating to the troubles. I was on the page Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_II's_visit_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland and saw the template {{Troubles restriction}} which contains this text

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

OK so now in hindsight it appears that the template probably needs a different target to the one in that link. I looked at the page I editted though - and though it's obviously pretty much all about some chap a few years ago and whether he's allowed to edit things or not - I assumed that was all related to 'the troubles active arbitration' but had not yet been archived away from that page.

I saw the line that says this 'Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. ' and also this 'Comments are very welcome on the Talk page' and I made my edit on the Talk page - not on the main article.

I've still got 3 questions

Why does that arbitration page not have a line saying 'this is now a completed arbitration - and this an archive'?
Why does the {{Troubles restriction}} template redirect there?
Why on the page Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_II's_visit_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland can I not see my edits unless I am logged in?

Hope you can help EdwardLane (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the template has 'active arbitration remedies' linked to this page too EdwardLane (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are my answers to your numbered points:

The case message 'Comments are very welcome on the talk page' makes no sense after the case is closed. Maybe the Arbcom clerks should create new template to address that situation.
The arb pages are not very user-friendly, but that is the usual way that remedies are linked. I am hoping to get consensus to reorganize the Troubles log of blocks and bans, and if I do so, there could be a better summary at the top.
Regarding your edits at the royal visit talk page, I'm unclear on what you were seeing. In general, since you have an account, you should log in to leave comments.

For general information about Arbcom, see WP:ARBCOM and WP:Guide to arbitration. Questions about what remedies are currently in effect could be addressed to WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I've not got back to you earlier I got distracted. Anyway thanks for the feedback - unfortunately I've failed (so far) to find my way around the WP:Administrators' noticeboard but thanks very much for pointing me at it (I didn't even know it existed). So my comments above are still in limbo :( I'll go have another look EdwardLane (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Just to let you know I made a change to the template (I moved where the link was piped from) that resolved some of my issues.

But some of the other issues I raised here are still unresolved and I don't know where to ask about them. I'm hoping you can help - any idea where I should ask about adding standard rules for changing the text at the top of pages for closed arbitrations?

Sorry to be a bother EdwardLane (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No record of good behavior? Question.

Latest comment: 12 years ago20 comments2 people in discussion

Do you still stand by this assessment?

"I'm not seeing a record of good behavior, or even innocuous behavior, since the current topic ban was imposed on 2 December"

This is not a continuation of my appeal, but a fair questioning considering you took the liberty of closing the appeal. I personally feel my comments were ignored but I accept the consensus.

Your comments are somewhat confusing because another admin said: I am grateful to Wikifan for contributing positively in the time since he was topic-banned". So who is right? If administrator AGK is correct, it begs the question if you read my appeal in its entirety which apparently included evidence of "good behavior." If AGK is wrong, then your general assessment is accurate and AGK didn't take the time to look through my appeal

Of course, is should be noted for clarity that editors aside from AGK [•] disagreed as well.

Let me know thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish for the discussion to continue here. The words that were expressed at AE will have to suffice. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

So by suffice you mean you stand behind your accusations, even though other admins and editors disagreed? Can the discussion take place somewhere else then if this makes you uncomfortable? It is suspect to have two administrators come to polar opposite conclusions in an appeal process. This issue IMO compromises the legitimacy of the decline if admins cannot own up to their accusations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You appealed at AE. There was a discussion, three admins participated, and the appeal was denied. I am sorry you found the result unsatisfactory. I suppose you could go to Arbcom if you want more process. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want more process. Are we having a comprehension issue here? You stated very bluntly that you could find no evidence of good behavior, and that was your motivation for declining. Another admin on the other hand recognized what he/she thought was positive contributions. As an administrator is there not some code one must follow? I did request more uninvolved admins to weigh in as uninvolved editors supported my appeal (including an admin on a non-english wikipedia) but you closed the appeal unilaterally before that could happen.

But, I digress. Do you stand behind your belief that there is no evidence of good behavior? A yes or no would be great. I will consider arbcom if we still have a disconnect here. I'm really beyond appealing the topic ban, this is about my status as an editor. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I felt that your answers in the unban discussion were unsatisfactory, and I am trying not to use stronger words to express how unhappy I was with your statements. Admins considering such a request rely partly on 'vibes,' on the theory that someone asking for unban is expected to have 'reformed' by some criterion. We try to see if the person is sincere. You dodged every which way about how come you disappointed your mentor. A frank admission of whatever problem there was (or disagreement) would have given you points for sincerity. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What answers specifically did you feel were unsatisfactory? You didn't respond to my comments to begin with. You seem fixated on this mentorship - I wasn't appealing my mentorship, but my topic ban. You completely shelved my statements in the appeal and deferred to a voluntary mentorship. So, for clarity - not only do you think I have a poor record of good behavior since December (contrary to another administrator's assessment) but believe I wasn't sincere in the appeal process? Though you never stated that at all. I'm trying to assume good faith here but you seem to be dodging a simple question - do you stand behind your original accusation that you could find no record of good behavior? At all? That puts you in conflict with another administrator. And two editors. This is more of issue as you were responsible for closing the appeal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Saying 'I wasn't appealing my mentorship, but my topic ban' is true. I have heard you say that. Now, as a reviewer of your topic ban, it would provide me some useful data if I can be told what went wrong with your mentorship. Are you willing to answer that? Or will you, at this point, start to ask for a different uninvolved admin, so you don't have to answer my question. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick with one issue before we move on to the next. You said, before mentioning the mentorship if I recall, that you could find "no record of good behavior" since December of 2010. No record in the last 5-6 months. The examples I posted in my appeal - exaggerations, lies, whatever - not a sufficient record for good behavior. Do you or do you not stand behind this accusation? I've asked you about 7 times between the appeal and this discussion and you haven't provided a clear answer but defer to my relationship with Danger.

If you agree I wasn't appealing my mentorship, why did you cite that as an issue rather than respond to my appeal of the original arbitration enforcement? I did provide two diffs showing my responses to Danger's ending of our mentorship (which were described by uninvolved editors as "innocuous") but you did not respond to them. If you really care about my mentorship history I'll be glad to provide you with my perspective but I do not see the relevance in my appeal (which, again - for emphasis - I'm not trying to continue). I also discovered in the last hour the editor responsible for filing the AE was banned. I don't know what effect that has, I imagine little, but I sent a message to Tim asking for clarification. So back to my original question - a yes or no would be great. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If you declared yourself willing to answer all my questions fully and frankly, it would increase my interest in pursuing this discussion further. When I found that I was not going to get any answer out of you about mentorship, and when it seemed that you would keep on asking for a different admin in the hope of getting a different answer, that decreased my interest in going through all the diffs. If you *are* willing to answer my questions, will you also let me interview User:Danger to clarify their attitude to the matter? EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What answers did you find unsatisfactory? I did respond to the reference to my mentorship which was ignored. Had you asked for more clarification, I would have gladly provided more. I certainly didn't waste any time as my responses were lengthy and explicit to other questions. however, I don't read minds. If you didn't like my answers then you should have said so. Is it not odd that two editors and one admin disagreed with your original assessment? If my appeal was a blatant snowball of decline then perhaps you would be making more sense, but IMO this mentorship (which was volunteer) issue is becoming a lightening rod. Now, again - do you stand behind your accusation that you found no record of good behavior since December? No clear response yet, but lots of talking about a volunteer mentorship. Who is being sincere here? When you answer that, then I'll set some time to investigate the events of March 2011 if you are truly curious. I wouldn't pester Danger unless this becomes a real deal. I would prefer you answer my original question first. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this will be my final offer. If you agree to my previous request (full and frank answers to all questions) and the right to interview User:Danger about the mentorship, then I'll look into the possibility of reopening your appeal. (I won't provide answers to your other questions unless I get that agreement from you). If you don't agree to my conditions, please take your request to other admins or to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, agree to re-open my appeal or overrule it entirely? I seriously doubt Danger will want to take part in any of this and unless there is some serious credibility to your offer which seems very unorthodox. What would I be requesting arbcom or another admin? I'm asking you specifically if you stand behind the assessment that I have no good record since December of 2010. It has nothing to do with my mentorship with Gimme. If you regret those choice of words then say so, but the onus rests on those making the accusations.

I do feel the appeal was closed prematurely, perhaps it would be better to re-open it and continue the discussion about my mentorship there? If this is a concern for you. I'd be happy to answer questions there in spite of the declined appeal, it would streamline the process and make it more public. I have very little hope in obtaining a modified appeal and it doesn't make a lot of sense try Arbcom (I wouldn't know where to start) because I only have a few months left. You say now my answers were unsatisfactory, but didn't say that in the appeal.

You've said more here than in AE. Over one simple question. To be clear, I care less about the appeal and more about your views as an administrator (you have more authority than ordinary editors). If you say I have no good record since December while other admins and editors disagree, there is a problem. Do you not see this? Again, yes or no would suffice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't continue the discussion unless you are prepared to accept my offer. Other admins can surely do a review if you can convince someone else to look into the case for your unban. If I didn't do a good enough job of checking your editing record, someone else could. I can assist you in looking for another admin if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me think about it. Don't close this section yet. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Final thoughts

At the time you closed the appeal, there was no active consensus and the comments seem to be mixed, with uninvolved editors openly supporting an overturn, one admin ambivalent, another grateful for my positive contributions, and you claiming no record of good behavior thus decline. So, since it is clear as an admin you don't want to respond to my questions about whether or not you still stand behind the assessment that I have no record of good behavior since December of 2010 (instead deferring to my mentorship with Gimme which I was not appealing), I think arbcom is the best place to go. I care less about overturning my ban since I have less than 2 months left rather - I would like to see some more answers. Arbcom would expect probably admins to own up to their criticisms correct? And the fact that my original AE was filed by a now community-banned editor certainly corrupts the integrity of the judgement IMO. Can you direct me to the arbcom process? As I stated above, I believe the appeal was closed prematurely and a consensus of uninvolved editors had not been obtained. In your own talk below you describe the appeal process: If an editor does not like an action against them at AE, they should use Arbitration enforcement appeal. As it explains at the top, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" can overturn the original action. So this *appeal* is the step that needs consensus, the original sanction does not. I don't think renewing a relationship with Gimme will help in this issue and most likely mutate into something totally different. Let me know thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing any response to my previous questions, I'm getting ready to archive this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comprehension troubles perhaps. Can you please direct me to Arbcom as you suggested? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You could also ask User:NuclearWarfare if he knows of the best approach. He is an Arbcom clerk. Since you have had a ban appeal denied at AE, I don't know the technicality of what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Undid my edit per your request, but I still have questions

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, I'm not sure I count as an experienced wikipedia editor yet, but I'm begining to feel like I'm getting there :)

You suggested I undo an edit I had made to an 'arbitration archive' page. Presume you mean this ^[2] ? - sorry for the clunky formatting I've never tried linking to a 'diff' before. As you can see I have followed your suggestion (I think? I hope this is what you meant - I don't think I've been to any other arbitration page before).

I've still got 3 questions

Why does that arbitration page not have a line saying 'this is now a completed arbitration - and this an archive'?
Why does the {{Troubles restriction}} template redirect there?
Why on the page Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_II's_visit_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland can I not see my edits unless I am logged in?

Hope you can help EdwardLane (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the template has 'active arbitration remedies' linked to this page too EdwardLane (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are my answers to your numbered points:

The case message 'Comments are very welcome on the talk page' makes no sense after the case is closed. Maybe the Arbcom clerks should create new template to address that situation.
The arb pages are not very user-friendly, but that is the usual way that remedies are linked. I am hoping to get consensus to reorganize the Troubles log of blocks and bans, and if I do so, there could be a better summary at the top.
Regarding your edits at the royal visit talk page, I'm unclear on what you were seeing. In general, since you have an account, you should log in to leave comments.

Hi Just to let you know I made a change to the template (I moved where the link was piped from) that resolved some of my issues.

Sorry to be a bother EdwardLane (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration renewed discussion

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

I am sorry that a bot archived this discussion page so now perhaps we might face a difficulty in communication due to the back and forth reading of pages. Anyway, i had some time to think about your comment and think i did. It was somewhat difficult for me to respond timely so i failed to avoid archiving, which i haven't even thought of in the first place. But, there's not much i can do about it now, i think, then express my regrets for the situation. Now about the reason for this renewal of discussion: what else would it be than the same issue as before - the sanction you imposed upon me. Of course, you may think. So here what i was thinking. And thought through, i think. :-) In your comment you gave me an impression that you are not completely sure about the reasons you imposed your sanctions. Why not sure - because you stated that you "don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind this case". But if you don't see a need, that doesn't mean there isn't any, right? I am not trying intentionally to catch in you some syllogistic trap, trust me, i am just trying to convey my case - of course - what else. Also, in your comment why are you describing the conditions of the deal - the deal as you named it. I honestly don't understand whether there is any other purpose for this than to emphasize your previous decision. It is because i don't find the deal any different than the sanction already imposed upon me i.e. my account. I might have missed something, though. Since this ruling of yours is important to me currently because it affects my edits, i would like you not to interpret my words as anything else but good faith. I understand we might have exchanged some fiery thoughts - but that could change, i think. On my behalf, i can say i was unpleasantly surprised, and therefore quite disturbed by the lack of your willingness to perceive the things from my perspective. I say the lack, because i perceive it as such - it's not necessary a true lack. Anyway, i would like you to "re-analyze the evidence behind this case", because i most sincerely believe i was wrongfully accused and therefore unjustly judged upon. I might be mistaken in my belief but please do point me, where these mistakes might be. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your ban from editing articles related to Kosovo expires on 30 July, 2011. If you feel it essential to return to those articles sooner, you can file an appeal at WP:Arbitration enforcement by using the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. If not satisfied with the response there, you can appeal to Arbcom. The last time we discussed this was at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 21#Arbitration. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the options which you presented, and i believe you understand you were clear with this before. Also i know when and where before my previous post at your discussion page, exactly was it that we discussed this. What i am doing is examining my options with you. I would like you to answer the only question i asked in my previous comment here. I will rephrase it: If you don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind the case, does this mean that there is no need at all? Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have chosen not to lift your ban myself. You are still welcome to appeal to WP:AE and to Arbcom. If you go to AE, the evidence behind the original ban will most likely be reviewed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I surely understand your decision. But what i don't understand is whether you have reviewed the evidence after my appeal to you. And if you haven't, i honestly wonder how come that my most recent comments had not raised any doubts in your decisiveness regarding your decision? Because in my opinion you were stating your own opinions on my history of edits and with that, some stance of mine - opinions which you gave somewhat too promptly in the very arbitration case itself. Opinions which are, in my own and personal opinion, also somewhat too personal - because of the lack of expressed arguments to support them - opinions as this one is: "I hope that Biblbroks will soon add his own response so we can see if he is open to changing his approach to Kosovo-related articles." Regardless of other editors' (except the plaintiff's) comments involved in the arbitration case you opinionated that i had an approach to Kosovo-related articles. An approach i should be open to change - as i understand. What would that approach be, i ask you. And why do you mention the Kosovo-related articles in plural - do you know of any other case of my edits to some other Kosovo-related articles which reflect an approach of mine that ought to change? Of course, any other edits apart from the same edits to the Kosovo article itself - edits which are currently a matter of discussion, and dispute. I mean, what i am asking you is: were there any such edits recently at least - recently as in a year ago or sooner. That is, if you investigated further than that period, i am certain that you might find some of my previous edits that might appear to someone as "me having an approach", but only if you assumed that my knowledge of English language had been perfect. Which it wasn't and still isn't as i am not a native speaker, and therefore i might have some preconceptions about meanings and usage of words and syntagmas in this language. Anyway, i believe i am improving those skills of mine. Looking forward to your reply with sincere regards to you, --biblbroks (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing more to discuss. As stated above, I've decided not to lift the ban. Please pursue the other options. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Before this thread closes, I will repeat the offer I made previously. If you agree to the following four things, I will lift the ban:

Observe 1RR/week in the future on all articles related to Kosovo
Not modify any interwiki links on articles related to Kosovo
You will try to ensure strict political neutrality for any edits you make to Kosovo-related articles
You won't make any controversial changes without first getting consensus on the talk page.

If you want me to follow up, please reply yes or no as to whether you will accept these conditions, for the period between now and July 30. EdJohnston (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be interesting, also to someone other than me, how you changed your mind about not ending the discussion and how you thought that it was obvious that you were decisive about your decision not to lift the ban although you continued the discussion. And that you did exactly by repeating the same statement about your decision with the exception of only one (i think) new information about your statement of inexistence of substance for further discussion. The statement which proved wrong when you gave a new comment where you stated the conditions of your offer. But you haven't answered any of my questions. Since i sincerely want to deal with the issue with you personally, i have a question which i like you to answer: what makes you think that previously i haven't tried to ensure strict political neutrality for any of my edits to Kosovo-related articles? Please, show me the diff to one such edit i made in the past year. Also, as it might be an issue in the future, i wish to inform you that i might have violated the sanction you imposed upon me. If i remember correctly two edits might fall into this category of being controversial regarding Kosovo's statehood (or Kosovo-related in general), and those would be these:

one edit to article Atifete Jahjaga regarding an information about the first case of such presidency
one edit to article Television in Kosovo regarding an unexplained edit by anonymous user (which might be valid though)

I hope we will continue to discuss this issue and, even more, that we will resolve it. Sincerely, --biblbroks (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am closing this discussion with you, since you have not replied yes or no to my offer to unban you, subject to conditions. (See the four numbered points above). Please pursue your options elsewhere. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, you are closing the discussion because I haven't replied to your yes or no offer. But on the other hand you haven't replied to my yes or no questions either. So it seems to me that from the start I had no options but to subdue to your offer or nothing - as if it was either to reply yes to your offer or pursue other options that don't include you. Do you think that discussing the preconceptions, which you might have had before you decided to accept the arbitration case, cannot help resolve this issue? If you don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind the case of arbitration, does that mean there isn't any need to re-analyze the evidence behind the case? Please answer at least one question. Or at least this one: do you think that I should have some further sanctions imposed upon me because of the edits I mentioned previously? Thank you for reading this. Regards, --Слободан Kovačević (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to say that I found out that I can reply yes to your offer but only partially - and that to the third condition of ensuring political neutrality. So, I promise I will try very hard to ensure strict political neutrality for any edits I make regarding Kosovo. Although I think I already did, I promise will try even harder - even after the topic ban passes of course. I hope you understand that I cannot agree to other conditions of your offer, exactly because I hope we can discuss this issue further - especially the interwikis (which I think are essential to this or even the only thing). Of course, that is under condition that you think it is possible to discuss this issue with me at all. Anyway, I think I am already conforming to the topic ban - unless you think otherwise. Regards again, --Слободан Kovačević (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Helder Ferreira

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

You mean reverting this edit. But it was obvoius vandalism for me. User Schweinee restored this rubbish info without providing any reference.--Oleola (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree to take a break from the article for seven days.--Oleola (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:uw-sanctions

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I need some advice from you, please have a look:[3], I had a big and tedious argument with user:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ(Dungane) over Boxer Rebellion. It will take forever to read through it, but basically, I was advocating implementation of WP Neutrality, and he was:

“

”

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would you mind to reopen this SPI? Another POV-pushing sock of his has recently trolled WT:Norway again. Thank you, Eisfbnore ^talk 11:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

MB case at AE

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Ed, I replied on my talk page. Could you please answer me? Angel670 talk 16:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you check it again pls. Angel670 talk 16:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I provided clarification. Please check. Angel670 talk 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I answered your questions. Cheers, Angel670 talk 20:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Indirect Accusation?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I hope that your lengthy paragraph concerning Marshall Bagramyan was not an indirect accusation towards me.[4] I clearly outlined the non-neutral websites used for the Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre article and made numerous inquiries concerning the self-published book by Leitzinger(which contains the report by van der Leeuw). You will notice I waited a week for clarification concerning the Leitzinger book and it wasn't until I made a motion to remove the non-neutral websites from the article did anyone seem interested in the discussion
I clearly indicated that the non-neutral sources fall under Questionable sources section(being unpublished websites). This was what I posted on the talk page:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1.the material is not unduly self-serving;
2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This was categorically ignored.
I, personally, do not have any pre-conceived notions as to whether this was a massacre or not. Whereas, statements such by:

NovaSkola, "I agree with Azerbaijani users as Massacre is happened and there is no way of denying it.". Reeks of nationalism and racism without bringing anything useful to the discussion. Most likely some off-wiki canvassing.
Neftchi, "Kansas I certainly hope that you're not here for some kind of revenge against me for my removal of Armenian source in NK war article.". A silly accusation of "revenge" concerning the NK war article that I have never edited!!!
Neftchi, "For example, if you google "Armenian terrorism" you get hundreds of hits from academic sources, magazines, books, etc. Yet availability of these sources did not stop people from deleting the article on Armenian terrorism, although the information about it is overwhelming.". What exactly does this have to do with the article? Nothing. Simply a ploy to divert attention away from non-neutral sources by attacking a certain ethnic group(ie. "Armenian terrorism").
Neftchi, "You guys did ignore my comment about abundance of sources on Armenian terrorism and denial of the fact that this term and reality exists, yet you claim the opposite on this talk page.". Another attempt to divert the discussion into an ethnic dispute.

Just so you know

Bakground info

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

And also, both Sean and Boris are involved in Arab-Israeli conflict articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. - BorisG (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I have sent you a mail, I also need your mail to send you more as explained in the message. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No record of good behavior? Question.

Latest comment: 12 years ago20 comments2 people in discussion

Do you still stand by this assessment?

"I'm not seeing a record of good behavior, or even innocuous behavior, since the current topic ban was imposed on 2 December"

This is not a continuation of my appeal, but a fair questioning considering you took the liberty of closing the appeal. I personally feel my comments were ignored but I accept the consensus.

Of course, is should be noted for clarity that editors aside from AGK [•] disagreed as well.

Let me know thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish for the discussion to continue here. The words that were expressed at AE will have to suffice. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me think about it. Don't close this section yet. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Final thoughts

Not seeing any response to my previous questions, I'm getting ready to archive this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comprehension troubles perhaps. Can you please direct me to Arbcom as you suggested? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment on my talk page

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Theodosius Dobzhansky

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Close by AGK of Enforcement Request concerning SD

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Ed -

It was my understanding that the outcome of the AE request concerning Supreme Deliciousness (permalink) was to have been decided by agreement among several admins, rather than any one imposing his wishes unilaterally, because of the high-profile and very strife-ridden nature of the request. I also noticed that in what I assumed was an ongoing collaboration, that when you were heading toward an admin-consensus decision to close with no action, as I understood, that you had the courtesy to ask AGK whether he wished to comment further before you wrote a close.

But now I see that AGK has closed it himself, and handed out a six-month topic ban. May I ask whether this decision was made in consultation with you, and with other admins? Or was it a unilateral decision on his part that essentially beat you to the finish line because you didn't know it was a race?

Part of the reason I ask is because I saw that here AGK asked you if you thought SD should be sanctioned, but then, less than three hours later he removed the question, without your having replied that I could see, and immediately closed the request. I'd feel quite troubled by this action if I were to learn that you had not actually responded to that question in the three hours it was in place before he removed it, and that he proceded with his close without consulting the wishes of other participating administrators.

I'll also admit that another part of the reason I ask is that I have a concern that AGK may not be as completely impartial an adjudicator in the I/P area as ideal perfection would require, to put it as politely as I can. I'll not say anything else about that here, except that my impression is based on multiple comments and actions that have seemed to me to indicate reason to raise the question. If others have similar concerns I'd be willing to present mine in some discussion that's appropriate to the purpose...

Oh, wait: As I was composing this I discovered that another user, Jd2718, has also expressed such concerns on AGK's talk, where that user likewise took exception to AGK's close, and makes similar observations to mine about AGK responding to your request for additional comments not with comments, but with a close.

Such concerns become more salient of course, since AGK appears to be ramping up his involvement in the I/P arena, and the more so because he seems to be doing so in a largely non-consultative, unilateral way, from what I've been able to see. For example he recently set up a kind of ARBPIA3-lite, as a kind of one-person court, essentially; I imply no disrespect with the term. I also understand from others' talk page comments that he's made a new proposal of some kind for enforcement policy in the I/P area. I haven't been able to find that, unless this is all that those talk page comments refer to?

It begins to look to me like we - the community - probably do need an appropriate venue to address concerns about whether AGK is as impartial as would be desired re adjudicating matters in the I/P area. It also appears, with the limited information I have available (perhaps he's consulted with other admins via IRC, for example?) that part of that discussion needs to be about a tendency toward non-consultative decisions in the I/P area rather than ones based on administrative consensus. I have several points I'd like to present in such a discussion, myself, and evidently at least one other editor thinks such a discussion is called for at this point, as well.

If you have a suggestion as to the appropriate place to open such a discussion, and how it could be approached in such a way as to keep the usual I/P drama from turning it into yet another slugfest, I'd be grateful. I've informed Jd2718 of my post here, btw, and also asad, because he also posted an objection on AGK's talk to his actions in closing the AE request.

But to come back to the original question, was AGK's closure of the AE request concerning Supreme Deliciousness essentially the unilateral action that it appears to me to have been, or did I miss something? – OhioStandard (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Attention talk page stalkers Please allow Ed the courtesy of responding to these questions to his satisfaction before you do, and don't post to this section unless/until he specifically invites general discussion here. This isn't the forum for a long or general debate on the questions I've asked of him, unless he indicates a willingness to host such a discussion here. Thank you. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

See my comment over at User talk:AGK#Problematic AE closure. As Sandstein reminds us periodically, an AE close is a one-person decision. Please ask Sandstein to comment on the situation; it would be interesting to hear his response. :-) EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If an editor does not like an action against them at AE, they should use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. As it explains at the top, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" can overturn the original action. So this *appeal* is the step that needs consensus, the original sanction does not. The complaint that people are making about lack of admin consensus for AGK's decision seems like it is actually an expression of unhappiness about the decision itself. It seems that few admins actually want to take the heat of closing an AE complaint regarding I/P. The experiment that AGK was doing was at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Arab-Israeli conflict. It seems that he has blanked the discussion, and perhaps he is withdrawing the idea. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed, that's a very good point. The experiment was mistaken (apparently), but in the meantime, there is a process for sensible appeal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ed: In this thread, I quoted you and Gatoclass here, beginning with "outdenting". You'll need to read the thread for the context, however. I infer from AGK's talk, and from his removal of my talkback, that he does not intend to accept my suggestion that he consult with you and Gatoclass to ask whether you favored closing with no action. Based on your previous comments I assume you probably don't care; your prerogative, of course, but I informed Gato, who I also quoted, so I thought I should inform you, as well. – OhioStandard (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe Gatoclass does not consider himself to be an uninvolved admin for purposes of closing ARBPIA enforcement requests. My own views have been adequately expressed. Notice that SD has not filed an appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks; I just learned from Gatoclass of his self-recusal from that area of AE. You may choose not to disclose the information, of course, and I could respect your reasons for doing so, but I'd still like to ask whether my strong impression from your comments that you intended to close with no action is correct? If you were to tell me that impression is not correct, I'd naturally have a very different view of AGK's close, and one that I'd frankly be glad to be able to have. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not looking forward to closing that. I would have had to do a lot of study, and I supposed that few people would be happy with the result, no matter which way it came down. My idea of closing with no action would have reflected the lack of any substantive proposal from other admins, and if I had done that I would have been expressing no opinion on the merits. You must be aware this whole process is under the supervision of Arbcom, so your displeasure could be forwarded to them. But, unless SD appeals, the normal process won't proceed any further. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:BelloWello

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Email sent. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you close this?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re: User:WriterEditorPenn block expiry

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry to bother you about this again -- but the hilariously single-minded account WriterEditorPenn (talk · contribs) you had placed on a time-out block is back and now moved beyond mere blanking vandalism and onto deceptive content creation.

It appears that with the expiration of the block for edit-warring, the editor has now decided to make a slew of slanted and perhaps intentionally fraudulent edits to DontDateHimGirl.com -- introducing claims that do not relate to the Web site itself, such as, "U.S. production company Reveille has optioned "Don't Date Him Girl" for a possible U.S. makeover announced at the Cannes Film Festival that year" -- although the source makes it clear that Reveille optioned a Scandinavian reality show unconnected to the site: "Sold by Nordisk Film TV World, part of Nordisk Film, reality show "Girl" turns on three over-confident single men competing for one girl -- despite the presence on the show of their ex-girlfriends."[5]

The SPA editor seems further intent on shifting the article far from NPOV: for example, claiming that in 2007, the site received a "Marketing to Women Award from Future Inc. Now" -- citing an online marketing blog, where a marketer decided to give kudos to "all the companies and marketers who have prompted my happy dances" [6] Not exactly a "serious" award, considering the site gets lauded for "Best Name for a Website" -- and the "winners get a free copy of my new e-book." [7]

Finally, it appears that this account is injecting a link to their own new site to "combat the constant vandalism, false information and editing wars that continue to plague the site's page on Wikipedia.com" -- which would be entirely contrary to WP:SELFPROMOTE.

The article is quite a mess now, and I'm inclined to revert it back to the state it was prior to the return of this user, but would rather not go down the road of re-igniting an edit war. As the user seems intent on not listening to any WP editor or admin, nor abiding by WP policy, I'm at a loss as how to proceed. --HidariMigi (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, this is one of the matters that is best taken to WP:ANI. That way, you will get a diversity of input. Plus, the misbehavior is colorful and amusing. Go there, phrase your complaint carefully, link to all the past discussions, be sure you ask for what remedy you want, and see what they say. Be sure to mention your own situation if you have had past involvement with the site. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. It is rather amusing now, in't? My "involvement" was pretty much none at all, other than coming across the site by accident, having found an odd posting listing me by name, which I ascribe to a kind of stalkery date I had years ago. Since the site has (within the last week apparently) deactivated its formerly accessible database-- which the SPA editor seemingly pretended didn't exist-- I have no connection whatsoever, other than being a curious observer of what the internets hath wrought. --HidariMigi (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Close by AGK of Enforcement Request concerning SD

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Ed -

Thank you Ed, that's a very good point. The experiment was mistaken (apparently), but in the meantime, there is a process for sensible appeal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:WriterEditorPenn block expiry

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The SPA editor seems further intent on shifting the article far from NPOV: for example, claiming that in 2007, the site received a "Marketing to Women Award from Future Inc. Now" -- citing an online marketing blog, where a marketer decided to give kudos to "all the companies and marketers who have prompted my happy dances" [9] Not exactly a "serious" award, considering the site gets lauded for "Best Name for a Website" -- and the "winners get a free copy of my new e-book." [10]

Will do. It is rather amusing now, in't? My "involvement" was pretty much none at all, other than coming across the site by accident, having found an odd posting listing me by name, which I ascribe to a kind of stalkery date I had years ago. Since the site has (within the last week apparently) deactivated its formerly accessible database-- which the SPA editor seemingly pretended didn't exist-- I have no connection whatsoever, other than being a curious observer of what the internets hath wrought. --HidariMigi (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice Boards and Reliable sources based on countries

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed,

One of the first things I notice about controversial topics in Russian Wikipedia, specially AA, or sometimes Iran and Turkey related (and I used google translator) is the following tag that is put in the talkpage: "Around the theme of this paper is complex conflict participants, of which this article was translated into a special editing mode. Authoritative sources for this article will automatically be considered only materials of academic books published in Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, other sources are subject to preliminary assessment in a group of intermediaries or by standard procedures. Number of allowable setbacks limited to one rollback per day (excluding setbacks clearly vandalnyh edits)....etc"

Please note then this could solve many of the same problems we run into in English Wikipedia) See the full tag here: [11], which I used google translation on part of it which I just brought for you. I do not think mutual noticeboards are effective in some of these topics, because these countries of the former USSR and some other countries indoctrinate a very heavy dose of nationalism from the early age. It would be like getting people from pre-WWII Germany to edit Wikipedia, and you will notice they will not necessarily change their mindset. Wikipedia, for the majority, cannot actually change the pre-conditioned mindsets. In the region, there is the NK conflict, Ossetian-Georgia, Abkhaz-Georgia conflict and also say other conflicts (now and future) in the region. So it doesn't really matter how many arbcomms are there, because new users would come repeating the same old stuff. Also when users are banned, they can showup within 6 months probably with new names and accounts. I think the way the Russian wikipedia has solved this problem is great. I would nominate some admins such as Golbez, Kansas_Bear, Dbachmann, Folantin etc. who have knolwedge of history and are known for the scientific unbias. They can easily use google books and google scholars, and also check the academic credentials of authors to decide on a topic. On controversial topics, they make a decision and that decision is final, anyone is free to challenge that decision in that admin noticeboard, but if try to change/edit the article without changing the minds of these groups, then they are sanctioned/banned. Overall, I would say close to 150 articles in AA, Iran and Turkey will have such an issue (no more than that). This will also attract far less nationalist userstypes and I think it is a framework that can work also for say Kosovo-Serbia, Balkan issues and other issues. But I do not know anyone else except you who might try to make a similar things a reality in English Wikipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for a board of admins to rule on the usable sources for each article? That would make a lot of people nervous, and it would need a huge amount of support, since we don't do that kind of thing. I hope you also have some less drastic ideas :-) EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, just a council of expert users and admins..I just think the Russian wikipedia has had much experience with these sort of issues and they have a better mechanism to solve it. I am not sure if I have all the details down correct, but it definitely should be studied by English wiki admins! :) Best.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Newsrooms/Olswang/User:217.150.105.202

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I suspect that User:Newsrooms did not heed your advice and is back at Olswang with this edit. Mtking (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have given him a reminder, and three more days. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the award cruft and corporate brochure style flags and office list from those pages and left a message on User Talk:Newsrooms. Mtking (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Since someone disagrees with the removal, I have asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Pages on Law firms about it. Mtking (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Guess who

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

RohilPCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think he is Koov, why not open an SPI? It is best to have a checkuser. I hope you will not be permanently using that new signature. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input would be valued.

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, please see User_talk:Unomi#May_I_please_ask_you_to_reconsider.3F, please also see the section immediately following that one. u n☯mi 22:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my April, 2011 statements about Mbz1 and the Gwen Gale block, which can be seen in the archives of AE at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Mbz1. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration renewed discussion

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

There is nothing more to discuss. As stated above, I've decided not to lift the ban. Please pursue the other options. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Before this thread closes, I will repeat the offer I made previously. If you agree to the following four things, I will lift the ban:

Observe 1RR/week in the future on all articles related to Kosovo
Not modify any interwiki links on articles related to Kosovo
You will try to ensure strict political neutrality for any edits you make to Kosovo-related articles
You won't make any controversial changes without first getting consensus on the talk page.

If you want me to follow up, please reply yes or no as to whether you will accept these conditions, for the period between now and July 30. EdJohnston (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

one edit to article Atifete Jahjaga regarding an information about the first case of such presidency
one edit to article Television in Kosovo regarding an unexplained edit by anonymous user (which might be valid though)

I hope we will continue to discuss this issue and, even more, that we will resolve it. Sincerely, --biblbroks (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I would like to know does your offer still stand? Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you accept points 1-4 above exactly as written, with no other conditions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would accept it, under two conditions:

if we continue the discussion about your decision to impose the sanction, because I still think that you haven't acted in the arbitration as well as you could,
if you make a notice about this agreement at the AE page (or any other you think is appropriate) regarding AE decision/AE sanction imposed on me, because this case affects other editors perspective of my work here.

I'm sorry if you think that I played you, but I was under the impression you wouldn't discuss with me any other way - also I think my conditions are very lenient. I hope we can continue the discussion even if you think otherwise. Best regards, --biblbroks (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't mean you to make a notice about the agreement we would make, but wanted you to make a notice worded by you (to your liking) - a notice to a page of your preference for which you would give me a link to. I just didn't succeed to word it well. I'm sorry if that created any confusion. I hope you won't interpret these comments as too much impatience on my behalf but more as a way to a compromise, because for now you appear to me as not budging a bit. I hope this will change as I am assuming good faith because I regard you as an uninvolved and impartial party to the arbitration case. I don't want us to have any grudges between us so I would really like to sort this out with you personally. And not go to any higher instance, or worse wait until the sanction expires. I really think this is important, otherwise I wouldn't be doing this. All the best to you, with thinking about this and to you in general, and to me for waiting for your response and to me in general, and again to you with reading this and to you in general again. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Ed, since V. saw fit to remove my comment at his page, here it is:

Ed, I disagree that V. has been trying for a negotiated result. You can read part of my side of the story here. Viriditas has been something of a loose cannon at this page -- in my opinion, of course, but he has drawn many complaints from other editors for his behavior at that page -- which I'd be happy to document if you like. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from setting up a WP:Request for comment at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. If people are cooperating poorly, setting a good example for the others sometimes works. Certainly the creation of an RfC would be viewed favorably by any admin who was thinking of sanctioning people for edit warring on that article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Ed, and I actually have a draft of one started. I just find that sort of thing intensely distasteful -- but the process is broken at that page now, so best hold my nose and Just Do It, I suppose. Thanks for the advice -- sad situation.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the upshot of Viriditas's 1RR complaint, which I just discovered and posted at AN/I: my post at Tillman (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2011. Your reaction would be appreciated. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock requests from Hard4me

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am considering an unblock request at User talk:Hard4me. You declined an earlier unblock request from the same editor, and you referred to "Socking". If the user has been socking then very probably the request should be declined, but I haven't seen anything else about that, so can you clarify? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice creation request

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed. Would you have time to create the usual I/P editnotice page for the Hamas Covenant article, please? I added the ARBPIA template to the talk page some time ago, but forgot to ask an admin to create the corresponding edit notice. Many thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed. I didn't say so earlier because I know some people dislike what I've heard described as "the orange bar of death", and I know your talk sees a lot of activity. But may I ask for one more, the same edit-notice for Palestinian cause, please? I'll be grateful, even if I don't explicity say so. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I created the edit notice, but I don't think they are always needed. There are 700-1000 articles tagged for ARBPIA, but fewer than 300 of them have edit notices. I think the edit notices are appropriate at hot-button articles such as Golan Heights, but they are not required everywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware. Thanks for letting me know. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey there EdJohnston, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:EdJohnston/Dobzhansky draft. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

FYA

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I just noted you are cordially guiding Angel670 on their talkpage. I'd like to bring to your attention this edit, where he/she reverted my note and tagged it as "stop vandalising my talkpage" (clear personal attack). If you think this is not a CIVIL way of communication, you might consider guiding him/her on the matter. Best regards. -- Ashot ^(talk) 09:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not happy to see that edit summary. Since you're here, and you are interested in a few of the same issues as Angel670, I invite you to propose how we could resolve the sourcing issues for the massacre articles. My concern is that the facts about the 1992 massacres are so poorly known due to the lack of nonpartisan witnesses, e.g. the Western press, so we depend on survivor testimony. In practice, each side goes on repeating the version of events that it chooses to believe. When we see a new account of the massacres published somewhere, we may not be confident that there is any real information behind it. Perhaps better sources are out there somewhere. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have some vision of how that article can be improved in an appropriate manner.

There really may be good sources we are not aware of (I am personally in search), but since in Wikipedia we can rely only on trustworthy neutral sources, we don't have a real alternative to scarce Western ones. So what we can do is (1) sum up all the Western sources we have; (2) RfC on those for which there is no consensus.

Now the major problem I foresee is partisanship (like this one), and here probably some formal or informal mediation might be useful (and hence your support would be more than appreciated). -- Ashot ^(talk) 14:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it startling and perhaps worrisome that Angel670 wants a 'tit-for-tat' approach to sourcing. One source from your side, therefore one from our side to compensate. (That's what the above diff suggests). It may be possible to have an open discussion somewhere to agree on a list of sources. It should be done in a way that is compliant with Wikipedia policy. If you want to take the initiative to set up this discussion, I am sure that admins will be available to help. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Angel670, the user who brought the past AE complaint, has started an RfC about one of the massacres, in which sources will be discussed. (See User talk:Angel670#WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan and look at the bottom of the thread). The RfC has been opened with this diff and can be seen at Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre#Request for Comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that RFC statement is yet another misconduct edit by Angel670. He/she knows very well (at least from preceding discussions) that only 2 of the mentioned sources call the event massacre. Furthermore, he/she was not kind enough to provide us all with scanned version of the German source for further clarifications.

I will refrain from commenting there as I agree with Marshal's statement and want to avoid partisanship in that RfC (let uninvolved editors have their input there and I'll join only when I find my input important). I also noticed you asked Golbez for a comment. Perhaps he is the most knowledgeable admin in the area and I only can thank you for that request.

And another thing I'd like to say is that I wish you patience. Armenia-Azerbaijan related discussions may sometimes grow into tiresome circles and I know admins who simply get tired of everything (see, e.g. here). I hope you will pursue this discussion to achieve an appropriate point. Thanks in advance. -- Ashot ^(talk) 05:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I wish there was some way to word the RfC in a more effective way. Since I'm trying to act as an admin, there should be a limit on the amount of intervention I do in the RfC proper. I hope other content editors will suggest rewording of #1, which suggests lack of familiarity with the WP:RS policy. (Sources should not get disqualified due to their city of publication, but they don't get qualified that way either). My guess is that there must have been some past discussions of the best sources for the Karabakh war. With patience, somebody could go through archives and locate these. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, I think that the boring text of the RfC is not going to attract others to get involved. I don't think Angel is the editor who is capable of cooperating to improve the RfC (see, e.g. his response to your suggestion on his talkpage). What is the proper way out? -- Ashot ^(talk) 17:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the RfC is stalled. But since we're all volunteers, we can't make people work on stuff unless they want to work on it. I think one or more people would need to do some library work to get the ball rolling. Any ideas? Do you think this article could truly be improved, or is your main concern that you don't want others to start slanting the content? EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have searched all possible scholar databases (English) and found nothing more (all my findings are in the discussion page). I am very suspicious that it is at all possible to find any more English sources. For non-English sources I can't be of help...

Regarding the RfCs. I'd prefer having a short RfC which simply asks whether the events can be called massacre based on the sources we have on hand. To make it even more simple, we can consequently RfC on concrete sources, namely "Caucasus and an unholy alliance" and "Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt" asking whether they can be considered reliable and competent enough to call the events massacre based on them.

I wonder if you have any suggestions of your own... -- Ashot ^(talk) 04:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you please share your thoughts regarding this proposal. Thanks. -- Ashot ^(talk) 05:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your effort on this topic seems worthwhile. It will take me a few days to get back to this, since I'm busy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bizovne

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello EdJohnston,

It seemms to me that your advice with respect to what should be called WP:MINOR, has not been taken, which is hardly surprising; given that Bizovne is patently unfamiliar with the English language ,because of which there is no possibility of interacting with him. Two days ago, I got a very odd message [12] from the user, which was a copypaste text made by User:Wladthemlat, originally, on various article talk pages [13] [14].

In my opinion, it is very problematic that he does nothing else on Wikipedia than reverts all the active Hungarian users, very often not being logged in [15]. And in addition, he follows the directions of the banned Iaaasi; yesterday Bizone initiated a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 [16] on which page, the most active participant is Iaaasi [17] and his sockpuppets[18][19] [20] [21] [22]

I filled an ArbCom Enforcement request concerning Bizovne [23] in which you told that that "I suggest that we might as well close this report without further action. If the behavior resumes, it can be handled with an indef block by any admin. The special powers of AE aren't needed."

I was wondering when this behavior could be amount to an indef block. It is true that there is an ongoing checkuser concerning him, but last time he was found culprit in making a sockpuppet while his master account was blocked for a month for harrasment, only his Ip-sock was punished for that [24] ,but his master-account wasn't.--Nmate (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Bizovne:

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

A block might be considered, but it requires some thought. Maybe a thread at ANI should be opened. I'll be busy for a while, but may get back to this in a few days. The original problem is that he was making ridiculously pro-Slovak edits. He was then blocked for a month for harassment. Somebody should carefully look at his edits since the block was lifted to see if they are still tendentious, or if he is still harassing people. It is possible that an indef block would be justified if the data was carefully examined. If you think you have convincing evidence of socking since his block was lifted, open a new SPI. I do not think a short block would be of much use, so we should try to see if an indef is justified. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I commenced a checkuser investigation against a sockpuppet of Iaaasi, commented on the ongoing checkuser investigation related to Bizovne, and expressed my opinion about the case at User_talk:DeltaQuad#Bizovne.2C_Iaaasi as DeltaQuad conducts the checkuser investigation related to this case. The mills of God grind slowly.... while that is also perfectly understandable that if you want to assign a desultory indef block to nobody. The problem is that Bizovne is not a sockpuppet of Iaaasi, but a meatpuppet of him and that is more complicated to corroborate with a checkuser. Recently, there has been archived an issue about Bizove at WP ANI [25] to which nobody showed any interest to participate therein. And if there was a launched indef-block proposal related to Bizovne at WP ANI shortly afterwards, that would not look good....--Nmate (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, Nmate does not like Slovak editors (just look at his blocking history and his activity on Wikipedia). I don't know lassi and Nmate's allegations are ridiculous. Best regards :) --Bizovne (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

North America

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I need your mediation. A single user added a citation needed tag to a text I wrote. After looking for sources I finally added a book and now he's making up excuses to remove the text. This is a direct cite from a book. He just won't care (since he doesn't want the text added) and keep removing it.

As full disclosure, he has taken a personal stand on me after I wouldn't let him add boosterism statements about brazilian cities. This might seem irrelevant but still needed to know because he never listens to what I write in his talk page, which is highly uncivil.

This is not a negociation site, this is a direct cite from a book. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the text I added because it is a direct quote from a book:

The North American economy is well defined into three main economic areas^[3], the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), and the Central American Common Market (CACM)^[3].

{{cite book|last=De la Torre|first=Miguel|title=Sociología y Profesión|year=2008|publisher=Nuevo León Autonomous University (UANL)|location=Monterrey|isbn=9702400511|coauthors=Benigno Benavides, José Saldaña, Jesús Fernández|page=116|chapter=Las profesiones en México: condiciones económicas, culturales y sociales|quote=La economía de América del Norte se encuentra bien definida y estructurada en tres principales áreas económicas: el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), el CARICOM y el Mercado Común Centroamericano}}

He's ignoring the source and reverting or rewording it. The continent has three main economic areas and the idea is clearly sustained by the following text in terms of economic integration, trade amount (Can, US and Mex are eachother largest economic partners). Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please open a discussion at Talk:North America as to whether this material belongs in the article. Set up a WP:Request for comment if necessary. Your claim in the edit summary to be reverting vandalism is not correct. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, with all due respect but can't you see what's going on here? He added a citation needed, then I added the citation and now he just keep reverting. This is clearly disruptive and a POV fork. As I already said, the citation is a direct quote from a book. It talks about the economical integration of North America so it clearly belongs to the artice. Why a single user can trick the system? Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You need consensus of other editors that your material is relevant and worthy of inclusion. Try to start a discussion involving more than just the two of you. I am having a bit of trouble even understanding what you disagree about. Explaining the matter on the talk page would be the first step. Is the only available source one written in Spanish? EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Enabled email for AWB

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have now enabled email, per your request--Jeff (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have enabled AWB for your account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive user is back

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, EdJohnston! Back in April you warned User:DeusExa (talk) that if they did not stop their disruptive editing, they would be blocked. The problem was their repeated, unexplained removal of a sentence from Stanford University. The sentence states that many alumni have founded high-tech companies. The sentence is sourced, and there was a strong consensus to keep it. DeusExa removed that sentence three times during April. Also during April, the sentence was removed by ISPs 169.229.82.172 (twice) and by 136.152.209.246. (All three of these IDs were reportedly traced to UC-Berkeley, so this might involve some kind of misguided university rivalry. User:DeusExa has actually added to the University of California-Berkeley article a sentence on the exact same subject, namely alumni who have founded high-tech companies. [26])

DeusExa was reported for edit-warring [27] and they ignored repeated requests to explain their behavior or to answer the charges. As a result of that investigation, on April 27 you warned the user and placed a month's semiprotection on the Stanford page.

Protection expired May 27. On June 10, DeusExa deleted the same sentence again. After it was restored, it was deleted again on June 11 by ISP 71.92.195.143.

I don't know how to proceed here but it seems to me there is a case to be made for both edit-warring and sockpuppetry. Can you look into this, or what needs to be the next step?

Thanks for any help! --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the semiprotection. That should take care of the ISPs. If DeusExa continues to be a problem I will let you know. --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalking behaviour

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I consider Fut Perf to be your responsibility because you have backed them before, and raised the issue to me "out of the blue" a couple of times, despite my assuming good faith (albeit misguided on your part and mine). Fut Perf has started to stalk me again at Antisemitism. Since this subject is not part of Fut Perf's usual stomping ground and the first time I have ever edited "Antisemitism" (this morning). I would like you to start showing me some good faith. Fut Perf gamed the system and set me up for what you continue to criticise me for. It's high-time Fut Perf answered for their crimes. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Harassment

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I need your help regarding user 08OceanBeachSD attitude. I strongly believe (as suggested by what I've experienced) he is harassing me. He arrives to every single article I edit and undo or modifies whatever I write (meaning he's watching me). This just started when I stopped his boosterism practices of Brazilian cities in several articles. So I guess he took it personal and started editing every single article I've been interested for years, very suspiciously taking the exact opposed POV even if it is not a correct POV. He just does that to bother. I already directly complained about this to him, but as expected he denied everything [28]. I just told him that time would tell if he's harassing or it was just "a coincidence" as he labeled it.

Today I found yet another evidence of harassment. I did this edit on June 9 [29], deleting a second picture in subsections that only merit one. Today he did this [30] adding it back. It's been the same in article North America, check article history.

He's been rude, uncivil, harrasing and never ever listen to the arguments I give. He just ignores it. This is not important for my case but I've been contacted by other users that suspect he's a former blocked user that edits and adds the same info in articles related to LA, San Diego and Tijuana. It is suspicious how he started using that account, seems to be very well aware of how Wikipedia works based on his first edits. I need guidence about what steps to take because he won't listen and will continue his hostile attitude. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Ed could you look over my comments on the militant atheism article talkpage and confirm if I have over stepped the bounds of the discussion. It appears that everyone but atheists have to acknowledge their fanatics and when I post when a militant atheist posts an endorsement of hate and violence on the article talkpage now I am being threatened with ANI and my comments are being hidden and or censored. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I urge you to edit calmly on that page. Some people are ascribing personal attacks to you. If this issue goes to ANI, it will probably turn into a big mess. Try to avoid that if you can. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood, just know I am totally against hate mongering bigotry and completely against the type that is historically atrributed to having gotten millions of people killed. I feel that pro-atheists editors are being given way too much of a pass to edit war on this, they are edit warring against other edits even today, calling their contributions vandalism which is not good faith and a personal attack on ones contributions intregraty. I have not edited on the article directly in awhile and of course will follow what you say. If you feel I am out of line I will remove myself from the article. As always be WP:BOLD. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This article perhaps should not exist because it is hard to think of any NPOV way of treating something called 'militant atheism.' Militant is a disparaging word in many situations. If consensus won't permit the article to be deleted, then anyone such as yourself who wants to contribute there should behave as though they are walking on eggshells, because the talk page is likely to be an unpleasant place. If you are hoping to make changes that will be generally accepted and supported, choosing a different article would be wise. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

[31]Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed. I've always respected you as an admin. However, I'm a bit puzzled (actually troubled) as to this question you pose to Nableezy. Are you asking Nableezy, one of the most adversarial editors in the I-A topic area, blocked and banned on numerous occasions, advice on how to proceed? Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your preference is that admins should not negotiate? Ad hominem reasoning would cut both ways in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, one more thing. I seemed to have caught Nableezy's unwanted attention in that he feels that the question I posed to you on your page violates my topic ban (I’ve already served 4 months of a 6 month exile) and he is threatening me with enforcement. Please see my response to him and please bear in mind that if you think it was a violation, it was unintentional and allow me the opportunity to self-revert. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you wish, you can strike out your question above. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gibraltar AE

Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Hi,

I and other editors (Pfainuk and Wee Curry Monster) may be violating the rules of an AE in which you participated[32].

On the one hand we have been asked to give our opinion about an edit proposal (in order to settle the dispute).[33] On the other hand, we are not supposed to make comments about the period the edit deals with. Should we remove our comments?

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The above comment is untrue. I will simply point out that Pfainuk and I refused to comment, per our restriction. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the current editing restriction on WCM and three other editors, from AE archive 88:

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), Imalbornoz (talk · contribs), Pfainuk (talk · contribs), and Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs) are placed on the following restriction: they may not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they have posted on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction: "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule; "object" includes any expression of opposition to the proposed edit, regardless of the reason behind the opposition.
The four editors listed above are further banned from starting or participating in any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed. This restriction applies to all namespaces and all pages.
Violations of either of the above restriction will result in an immediate ban from Gibraltar and its talk page, as well as any further sanctions an uninvolved administrator may choose to impose.
Any uninvolved administrator may, for good cause, grant an exemption to the restriction in item 2 on a case-by-case basis. Such exemptions may be revoked if abused.
As an application of item 4, an exemption to item 2 is granted to all four editors as follows: item 2 does not apply to participation in a binding content RFC regarding their present disputes. The RFC is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator, who may set such limitations as necessary to ensure the smooth progress of the RFC. Like all exemptions, this exemption may be revoked if abused.
Restrictions 1 and 2 will be lifted upon the conclusion of the content RFC referred to in item 5, provided that such RFC yields a consensus on the wording to be used, and the editor accepts the outcome of the RFC and conform their future edits to it. They may not attempt to change the outcome except by initiating a new RFC no less than one year after the original RFC concludes.
All involved editors are warned in the strongest terms that disruption of the RFC process, in whatever form, will be viewed with great disfavor, and will lead to sanctions up to and including a lengthy block and/or topic ban.

I don't see any reason why someone can't open the binding RfC which is called for in #6 above. So in my opinion, the four of you should cease participating at Talk:Gibraltar until such time as the RfC is opened. I see no problem with the exchanges thus far, and you don't have to remove the comments, but I advise you not to continue the discussion at Talk:Gibraltar. Others such as User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick who are not restricted can go ahead and try to reach consensus without you.

If any restricted editor has questions or comments go ahead and follow up here, without concern about the restriction. Just don't continue to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I do have a question as it happens. You had two editors, myself and Pfainuk, trying to argue content based on their access to multiple sources, this content was simply vetoed by editors, Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge, who don't have access to sources. Now have an editor, Red hat of Pat Ferrick, proposing the same content I did, based on the same arguments I proposed two years ago, who is the same editor who lobbied for an arbcom case, who lobbied to sanction me and sided with the same editors I mentioned previously alleging I was trying to remove sourced content on nationalist grounds. I mean, really, does this not strike you as a tadge Kafkaesque? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am still concerned by Imalbornoz and Keatinge not having access to sources. The coincidence that someone else is now favoring one of your positions does not sound like it requires any admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Just let me try and get my head round this. He alleged I was editing on nationalist grounds, arbcom backed him up, now he is using the same argument about the same content. I don't disagree but does that not indicate to you at some point an injustice was done? I also brought evidence of disruptive behaviour to AE and rather than dealing with it, I was effectively tarred with the same brush and sanctioned for editing based on the principles of sourcing content from reliable sources to present the majority view in the literate. Again does that not seem more than a little Kafkaesque? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Kafka can speak for himself. If you don't want to start an RfC, that's your prerogative. But the topic ban remains in place until you do so. Since Gibraltar has been endlessly litigated in admin forums I seriously urge you to get on with the job. If you feel that AE was unfair to you, Arbcom is thataway. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Every attempt at an RFC on Gibraltar has been derailed by disruptive editing. Tell me would you oversee an RFC on Gibraltar to stop that? There is a reason it has been endlessly litigated and that has been because of a lack of will to tackle the disruptive editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If an RfC encounters any problems, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I broadly agree with EdJohnston, though I couldn't help but wonder if we would be better off just topic banning the whole lot on both sides instead. When I wrote those restrictions I expected an RfC to occur in the near future. The fact that it hasn't even been opened yet after more than a month is concerning. T. Canens (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston: for the record, I and Richard Keatinge do have access to sources.

Ed & T Canens: well, I didn't think we could start a RfC (it seems I didn't get the meaning of the AE ruling too accurately...) If we can, I think we should start it right away. Would it be alright if we write an intro to the RfC with a 200 words limit for each position, and then making the commitment to not comment in the RfC unless we are asked to do so? Thank you! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In reply to T.Canens, I've been dealing with a double bereavement, Pfainuk has had personal problems as well - this is why we haven't done anything. I also ask what is the rationale in topic banning editors who write content based on reliable sources, lumping them in the same category as disruptive editors who don't have access to sources and simply veto it. The "sources" Imalbornoz refers to consist of asking another editor, Ecemaml, by proxy for the record. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If WCM is going through hard times, we can wait for the RfC. Of course. That is more important. When he says he is ready, I would propose the method I have mentioned above: an introduction with a word limit (200 words, for example) for each side. Would that be OK?

WCM, please, stop making assumptions about my access to sources. I do have access to sources: my own books (which I have purchased second hand in Amazon), the public library, internet, ... and of course I may also ask other editors to send me some scans! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed for addressing what struck me as very direct breaches of the AE ruling. I welcomed that ruling because I really have had far more than enough of futile wrangling with no end in sight, even though I now read my well-stocked bookshelf on Gibraltar for pleasure and interest only. Access to sources is only one of the fairly simple concepts I have absolutely failed to convey despite repeated attempts in my very best English. I don't propose to repeat them all here, but I will just reiterate one: mentioning that certain facts are important to one or more of the three relevant nationalist narratives is not an accusation of bad faith. It's not even a hint. It's merely relevant to editing this article in a sophisticated and collegiate fashion.

I'd be prepared to take part in an RfC, though I think it essential that any such RfC should be overseen by an admin prepared to get involved in content and to enforce brevity, relevance, and final decisions. (I arrived at Gibraltar in response to an RfC and other well-intentioned editors have similarly failed to bring peace and harmony.) But I don't feel inclined to start one, and after wasting such an incredible amount of time I would positively welcome T. Canens' suggestion of topic banning everyone involved in the wrangle. We all have better things to do, both in real life and on Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You say that "mentioning that certain facts are important to one or more of the three relevant nationalist narratives is not an accusation of bad faith". I agree. I won't detail my disagreement with the principle implied by that statement (that a neutral history of a region or territory should be based primarily on the positions taken by parties in a modern dispute) here because it's not relevant. That said, I do think that announcing that people are taking a position purely out of embarrassment out of the actions of their country's soldiers (over three hundred years ago) rather than out of the genuine concern for neutrality, and announcing that editors are trying to skew the article toward a specific POV rather than aiming for NPOV, is accusing editors of bad faith.

I too saw what I considered to be fairly obvious breaches of the restriction - which is why I pointed them out on talk. I would also like to ask if sending campaigning messages on a subject on which you are barred from editing is to be considered in keeping with the spirit and letter of the restriction. If so, it is difficult to see why we should not carry on exactly as we were before it came into place.

I have been meaning to start the RFC for some time, once I had a week or so where I was not busy in RL. Unfortunately, I have been quite busy over the last few weeks. My first step was going to be to ask at WP:ANI for a volunteer admin to oversee the process, to ensure that no funny business goes on. I was hoping that that admin would receive short messages (<500 words or so) from each of the four of us outlining the various positions and would be able to put together a neutral RFC summary - the plan being to make the RFC as clearly and indisputably fair as possible and to ensure that it represents the best possible consensus that can be achieved. Pfainuk talk 17:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In answer to Pfainuk's comment, no he is not allowed to continue on as before. Pfainuk is one of the four restricted editors and he can't participate on the talk page except within the bounds of the RfC which has not yet been opened. The same rules apply to Imalbornoz, and his message to Red Hat was probably over the top. Red Hat and Narson are not restricted, and they can do whatever they want subject to the fact this is a hot-button article and new sanctions are possible if anyone doesn't follow the spirit of the Arbcom decision. Imalbornoz asked if he could go ahead and start the RfC with 200-word statements, and that sounds fine to me. 500 words is also reasonable. If any of the four of you wants to drop out of the debate, in exchange for not editing the article or the talk page for a year, that could be discussed. The only weird thing is that compromise language on the disputed matters could easily be drafted, and the level of hostility has so far prevented that. Please continue to keep discussion of the restriction off the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There's being restricted in theory and being restricted in practice. If we are restricted in theory but in are practice free to campaign for our position as we wish - as your message would appear to imply - then there is no restriction in practice. Saying something "was probably over the top" does not cut it. Either it was acceptable, in which case we are all fine to say whatever we like and we should abandon the bizarre pretence that a restriction exists, or it was not acceptable and this should be made clearer than saying that it "was probably over the top".

The fact is that RFCs have been tried before. They've been drafted, but most of the time they've been filibustered. This is why I want to get an admin properly on board with this process to police the thing. This is why I want the admin to draft the opening statement. Among other things, this will give the minimum excuse for the filibusters that we have seen every other time we've tried an RFC, and the minimum scope for biased opening messages. Pfainuk talk 18:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make a request at ANI for an admin to assist you, go ahead. In the mean time, feel free to propose a statement of the question to be answered by RfC on your own talk page, and link to it here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So does this mean that there is in fact no practical restriction preventing us from campaigning our position to outside parties? Pfainuk talk 19:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list of people that you think ought to be notified? EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I believe you're confusing frustration with hostility, I've suggested to Pfainuk that he take a break.

A compromise text could easily be reached and I honestly don't think you could blame either Pfainuk or I for not trying. We proposed many compromise texts and suggestions for improvement; each and every one has simply been vetoed as "No consensus to change". This is why a compromise has proven to be so elusive.

Pfainuk and I share genuine concerns for the neutrality of the text that was in the article (which I'd be happy to explain if you wish but I don't imagine you're that interested). Instead of considering our comments/arguments/text proposals, we were accused of editing out of embarassment for the conduct of British soldiers 300 years ago and of skewing the POV of the article, rather than trying to achieve a NPOV.

I note that both now claim to have a bookshelf full of sources. See [34], [35],[36].

I don't propose to clutter your talk page anymore but like Pfainuk I fear any RFC will go nowhere without suitable admin oversight. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC) BTW I've told Pfainuk to go down the pub, which is where I'm off to, so hopefully you will have a quiet night now. Slàinte mhòr agad Wee Curry Monster talk 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Can I ask for an exemption from this to work with RHoPF on a project in a sandpit? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider working off-wiki with The Red Hat. For example, you could use docs.google.com. It is better not to use any page on Wikipedia until the RfC is opened. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe #4 in the above was written for examples such as this, specifically Any uninvolved administrator may, for good cause, grant an exemption to the restriction in item 2 on a case-by-case basis. Hence, my request, I would prefer to work in the open and under scrutiny. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to allow that, because we'd have to concede the same right to all four of the restricted editors. Do you have any predictions yet of when you can open an RfC? If deciding on an RfC is considered too difficult, I wonder if we could simply get the four of you to take a long-term break from all Gibraltar matters. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello EdJohnston, I raised my case here. Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please watch Andelousi's edits. He deletes sourced materials by well-known scholars. He tries to undermine or censor non-Muslim views and changes this views to "claims" or "alleged"... Me and other users addressed his disruptive edits in Asma Bint Marwan's discussion page in detail. Please take a look at it--Penom (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please also see this incivil comment by Andelousi (using inappropriate language such as "ignorantly", "nutjob"--Penom (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird message

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

was that meant for me I have not made any edits! 92.16.28.116 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My comment was a response to this edit of the ISBN article that was made from your IP address back in 2008. Since IPs often change hands, you may want to ignore the older messages. A different person could have been using the IP address then. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Master Thesis

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi EdJohnston,

WP:RS states that "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD... are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes." Could you please clarify whether master theses are considered RS in this regard? Thanks. -- Ashot ^(talk) 05:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If the question is important, you should ask it at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (In that case you should specify which article, who wrote the thesis, and what fact you're trying to establish). I'd be quite surprised if a master's thesis were accepted as a reliable source. If the thesis is based on other publications, maybe those could be used instead. EdJohnston (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This may be of interest for you. Best, -- Ashot ^(talk) 08:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Harrassment by blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out. And has been doing so under many constantly changing I.P. numbers while logged out. This user has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars.

Because I reverted the POV material this user added in the Cultural genocide and Daşkəsən articles, he got angered by this, and is now erasing any editions I make indeed in any article for no apparent reason, except due to a gruge it seems. (Maphobbyist talk) 23:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin Behaviour

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Ed, Can you tell this admin [37] that he should concentrate on the argument rather than generalizing a user who is using scholarly sources? Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance Requested

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please look in at this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Special_Constabulary

I removed an image I thought was irrelevant but another poster has responded by putting it back in again and making an insulting comment to me on the discussion page. I have followed the links from the warning on the top and believe you are a neutral editor involved in overseeing articles on the Irish Troubles. I would be very grateful for your input before the other poster starts an edit war as this is clearly banned by the warning. I have put in a rfc request but have never done this before and am just a little unsure of how I should go from here. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your RfC looks OK to me. I recommend that you don't remove the image again unless the RfC is officially closed and it decides the image should be removed. You can make a request at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close it, after the RfC has run for a reasonable time. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Incident Report/Relpmek

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Now that the incident report has been archived [38], is there anything further which can/will be done regarding the user? Thanks --Chimino (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What else is there to do? The socks are blocked. The Relpmek account is nominally free to edit but any renewed misbehavior will be quickly dealt with. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay, I didn't know they were blocked. I'm new to this entire process. Thanks--Chimino (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed myself from the discussion at Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, following accusations of selective canvassing and slander.[39] After even agreeing that one reference does state massacre[40](Leeuw's book, "Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity, Angel670, still decided to react in a hostile manner. I believe this is directly related to his/her inability to address the question of the unpublished non-neutral sources in the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request needs your attention...

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See User talk:71.161.231.96, who appears to be caught in this rangeblock. I note that you have blocked this range alot, so presumably there's a lot of abuse coming from that range from one user. Is there a possibility this is an innocent bystander? Since you are most familiar with the details, I defer to your judgement on this. --Jayron32 03:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on the IP's talk page. The block is anon-only, so he can still log in to edit. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Zeumer

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was reading this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Capenj/Thomas_Zeumer as well as the "dispute" as to Zeumers role in the fashion industry here the quote from you: "The same forum poster says there are 'complicated stories' about Thomas Zeumer. We have no idea if Zeumer's 'Metropolitan Models' is the real Paris agency that discovered Claudia Schiffer. Ref. 2 of our article doesn't give any evidence that this *American* Metropolitan Models is the same as either of the European ones. All it shows is that Zeumer was an executive of a New-York based modelling agency of that name."

This youtube video is proof that he was atleast the agent for Heidi Klum via the Agency Metropolitan Models. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww7woyxI8gA

I hope that helps and perhaps it can be used on his page as proof

DNG

93.132.83.68 (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The draft article at Thomas Zeumer at User talk:Capenj/Thomas Zeumer still has problems with not enough reliable sources. It continues to cite a book that seems to be unpublished: "Claudia, Heidi und Ich" July 31, 2005, Wunderlich Verlag, Germany ISBN-10 3805208014. I am doubtful whether the Youtube video can be accepted as a reliable source. If Zeumer is an entrepreneur and promoter, then his activities will in the normal course of events lead to press coverage. It is surprising that it should be so difficult to find press articles that report on Zeumer's work. See the last AfD discussion for the issues that need fixing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alex, I got your mail. To get any admin action, I think you need to show some pattern of abuse. Also you have no diffs showing the possible sock making edits that are the same as those of the previous guy. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm sorry if my english is not well enough. User Flyer22 has used my username as a suspect and wrongdoer in all her comments in the Titanic (1997 film) discussion page, at this sections: Consensus and Rudeness and consensus. Instead reporting IPs that worked against consensus for Titanic's article she has done unlike WP:NPA and WP:AVOIDYOU and often used my username in her comments as wrongdoer user. I removed my username on her comments but she reported me on the notice board and finally overseer administer warn me to ask from an administer later to remove unfair sentences, not me. I think our duty at the Wikipedia is not surveillance and then scandalizing and war against each other. I need your attention, my friend may i please you to help me?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an old dispute which appears to be over. No new discussion has been added at Talk:Titanic (1997 film) since April 20. Since the dispute about the lead is not continuing, and nobody has said anything negative about you recently, I would suggest you let it go. If you believe that further changes in the article lead are desirable, I suggest you open up a WP:Request for comment. This will ensure that all opinions are placed on record in a single discussion, and will reduce the chance of assumptions of bad faith. It is not easy to see why there is so much passion over what seem to be minor differences in the wording of the lead. Be careful not to revert other editors' comments since admin action may follow. If Flyer22 makes any new allegations on the article talk that you behaved improperly, it could be worthy of reporting. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr Smarty Pants block

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Ed. This user is very obviously the same as Gytuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which is the same as YechielMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which is the same as Shawnpoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which is the same as Nablusy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which is the same as FindersSyhn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which according to this is in fact Grawp. You mind reconsidering the block length and talk page and email access for this account, at least until the next sock comes? nableezy - 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed one of your blocks

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Mr. Smartypants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I reblocked this user and and removed email and talk-page access. There's currently a report on ANI concerning the targeting of this article by "Grawp" and this user is just the latest sock.

Please let me know if you have any problem with this.

CIreland (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see Nableezy already informed you. (That'll teach me to check the bottom of people's talk pages before hitting Add Topic). CIreland (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your decision looks reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

An editor in need of help

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. You made a recommendation on WP:AE#Shatter Resistance about fifteen hours ago. It worries me that nothing has happened since. The poor guy is completely out of his depth. He has no understanding of 3RR, BRD, vandalism, The Troubles ArbCom or anything else. I'm bothered because the lack of any progress is only going to encourage him to transgress further. On the other hand, if he behaves for another day or two and then a block is handed out, it will look like a punitive block. What this editor really needs is an admin with endless patience to give him a quick education in the facts of WP life. Do you know anybody who could do that? Apologies if this request is irregular. Scolaire (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

AE requests can take several days to close. This is not unusual. Shatter Resistance was given the chance to undo his last revert, but he declined to do so. This will count against him. He does not talk like a newbie who requires education. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read his comments? He is absolutely clueless! It's embarassing how naive he is. I guess I'm not going to convince you, but I believe you're going to come down like a ton of bricks on a poor schmuck who thinks he knows everything and actually knows nothing. Scolaire (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A thank you

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for unprotecting Katrina Dunn as I had requested on WP:RUP. I must apologize, as I had meant to include the link to my draft of the new article. I'm glad you found it, and thanks again. Agent 86 (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops - thanks!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Oops, and thanks! Cheers DBaK (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mammal

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, you recently blocked three accounts for their actions at Mammal. See also this suspicious IP edit: User:79.168.32.130 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mammal&diff=437636719&oldid=437631972 μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Vsmith has put on a week of semiprotection since the edit you describe. Let me know if the problem continues after that. I wonder if there could be an off-wiki campaign targeting this article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Kamma (caste)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for protecting the article. As the major contributor, I have been struggling hard to keep the article intact for more than three years.Kumarrao (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Another Edit War

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You had previously warned User talk:Hoops gza pertaining to edit warring on the Treblinka extermination camp. The user is back at the same article, reverting others edits and going against consensus. Admin action I think would be a good wake up call. The user in question has (so far) been involved in three serious edit wars on both article and category pages and has received warnings from at least two administrators. -OberRanks (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

More copyvio at Boleto

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

On July 4 you resumed adding copyrighted material at Boleto. You were previously warned about this on 16 June, and you've been blocked. Please listen to what people are telling you. The next time you add such material you may be blocked for a month or longer. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston,

I agree that my initial stub still had a fell lines that might be similar to the original text used as reference. Nevertheless, after being warned about copyright issues I immediately changed the entire text which then had my own words.

That would be very kind of you if you could explain to me why the last version of my text now breaches any copyrighted material.

Cheers,

Francisco luz (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for helping resolve the situation at Boleto. If you are able to, could you revdel the applicable revisions as per WP:CFRD #1? - SudoGhost ™ 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You should ask someone else. I don't perceive that admins should use WP:REVDEL for run-of-the-mill copyright violations. (The policy permits it but does not require it). There has been no outing, obscenity or defamation and the text involved is rather boring. Also, deleting these edits would make it impossible to point to the bad edits during an unblock dialog, if he claims they were legit. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the clarification of the ISBN stuff. With all the digits, and no hyphens, I could not see that the core numbers were the same. Perhaps the text of the article could explain this a bit more clearly. 211.225.30.91 (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see that, in several occasions, you are actively and promptly involved in shielding Balkanic nationalism. Or Zvonko Busic is your personal hero? Are you paid for this dirty business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.8 (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet and new e-mail

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
E Pluribus Anthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm surprised this registered Corticopia sockpuppet is not blocked yet. It is very obvious it is him per WP:DUCK. Well, he's editing again with that account.

As usual, consistent edit pattern with Corticopia and his other already blocked sockpuppets [41] in Canada, Quebec, Dominion, Cyprus, Georgia (country), Turkey, Europe (trying to impose the POV that Europe ends in the Carpatus), Eurasia, North America (trying to exclude Mexico from it), Central America, Latin America, Continent (excluding other continental models, prefer name Australia over Oceania), Americas, and geeky Battlestar Galatica-related topics.

A simple look at this account contributions and comparison with the other confirmed sockpuppets confirms edit pattern consistency.

Also, I think you might found interesting the list of contributors to the article Oceania [42]. There's the two accounts I privately reported, Chipmunkdavis (that you still think is unrelated) and IP 76.67.18.192.

Thanks for your time reading this and for keeping Wikipedia a healthy place to share and contribute. I report this to you because you're familiar with Corticopia's case, his editorial behaviour, style and edit pattern. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we see Bosonic dressing reverting a contribution by Chipmunkdavis at Georgia (country). Since you consider both guys to be Corticopia, can you explain that? I agree that the 76.67 IP could be him, but the IP has not edited since April. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If Chipmunkdavis is/isn't Corticopia that's a second matter, I know you're still not convinced and that's ok. We can even establish Chipmunkdavis and Corticopia are not the same, however it is very clear that Bossonic Dressing is Corticopia. The edit pattern is very evident. Please take the time to check it and compare it. They practically edited the same articles and spread the same POV. As I mentioned above edit pattern is also consistent with other Corticopia sockpuppets such as E Pluribus Anthony. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Even strange points of view can have many adherents who don't know one another. Please don't continue this here; take it to SPI if you want. Without a pattern of abuse, I don't see any reason to take action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks Ed, I will take this to the SPI seems to be a good case. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 23:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

militant atheism talkpage

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

At it again on the article. I have not edited the article (only commenting on talkpage). Get tired of the bigoted hate being respectable free speech but religious freedom or liberties being treated as enabling evil or at least being marginalized. What should be done about valid sources using the term militant atheism and enough of them to make the term "common"? LoveMonkey (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Unclear that you are being mistreated on that talk page. Someone called one of your statements a 'rant.' If there is anything worse, I would need to see diffs. You do appear to have a strong personal point of view on these topics, which you are not shy about sharing. It is OK to offer your personal views on talk pages, but there is a risk if it goes too far. (People may wonder if you are sincere about producing a neutral article). I didn't know there was a Society of the Godless in the Soviet Union. There is a lot of real material in the latter article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh no not mistreated. I am only stating that some of the things that the people in the article have said are very hateful. I specifically mean people like Christopher Hitchens. As for Dawkins he might matter if he (or Hitchens for that matter) could actually win a debate about if there is or is not a God. As it stands they lost.[43], [44] My point is..That people can not even say that they empathize with the massive amounts of people killed or who had their civil rights violated by the atheistic regimes mentioned in the article. I makes me think of the most destructive of all mental illness, something called sociopath. It looks like its OK for the people whom don't like the article's message to try with the greatest disrespect, to that entire component of the discussion, to do so without people pointing out just how sick that is. You have as of yet, to not offer very wise and good advice to me -so here I am again. Wondering how to handle that "component" (i.e. subjects appearing to exhibit sociopathic tendencies) in a Wiki way. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Orthodox point which is not being allowed..

""-- Russian emigres who established our Church fled not socialism but godlessness, militant atheism and persecution. The people who run Venezuela today are not the Soviet state. President Chavez may be a socialist, yes. But he is not an atheist. Moreover, he openly calls himself a believer, does not persecute the Church and does not propagandize atheism. Venezuela today finds itself in a profound social crisis, and something must be done, so I lean towards sympathizing with him. It is not the Church’s lot to involve itself in politics or decide which is better, socialism or capitalism. The Savior commanded us to tend to our neighbor, to help the poor and orphaned. Christianity is not alien to the concept of social justice—unless it is harnessed to godlessness. At the same time, many of our parishioners have a justifiable mistrust of socialists, which is characteristic for ROCOR. Orthodox Christians in Latin America are very politicized, and that’s the way it always was. For instance, during Allende’s time, they fled Chile en masse." [45]

I already posted this point in the discussion and it was made hidden by editor User:Mann jess whom also followed that up with the threat that my opinion on the talkpage is something that will prompt him to open up an ANI on my comments. THREATS Mr Johnston THREATS. People are leaving Wiki thanks to people whom are not administrator ACTING like administrators. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your material sounds like crusading. If there is a valid point under there it would need to be phrased in a way more neutral fashion. If you are offering the editorial opinion of the Orthodox church, that is tricky. It is unclear why we should allow any side to editorialize in that article. It would be better to report their views indirectly through historians. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought the article sources were doing that. Which one in the article doesn't fall into that scope? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to examine the article's content issues. Need you to supply diffs if you want to allege bad behavior on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My edits

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry but what does this mean?[46] Huh? Does it mean I cannot edit any more on Balkan subjects or is not simply the case that my editing is a bit too POV? I am angry at the moment because of a certain user called User:Timbouctou who has done nothing but revert my every one edit without explaining in the summary why he/she is doing that. It would have been OK if he/she left a summary but it's all "revert this revert that". The point is this: I tried to discuss with him/her and left a message on his/her talkpage which he/she must have noticed because he/she has reverted me since. I'm confused. All I wanna know is what is the problem with the things I am saying. I have not editwarred with anyone and I am not a vandal. Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Proud Serbian Chetnik. Thank you. —Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For having my back and not putting up with any nonsense from a banned user here and here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

RSS Article

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed,

The assignment of authorship of RSS 0.90 to Guhu is unreferenced and inaccurate, worse this inaccuracy has propagated to other sites that post-date the RSS article, reinforcing the inaccuracy. I was working at Netscape at the time and participated in the discussions where Dan and Guha worked out the format. Dan was a technical lead on My Netscape and drove definition of the format, with Guha providing his RDF expertise to the details.

The only documented attribution of RSS 0.90 that I can find so far is here (http://feed2.w3.org/docs/rss1.html) and states "RSS 0.9 was introduced in 1999 by Netscape as a channel description framework / content-gathering mechanism for their My Netscape Network (MNN) portal."

Dan's authorship of 0.91 is referenced and unambiguous. In your opinion, would it be better to drop the reference to both Dan and Guha's authorship of 0.90 altogether and stick to the citable statement "RSS 0.9 was introduced in 1999 by Netscape"? Or is it better to capture the true history as known by the participants?

Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwporter (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find any reliable sources, then it's better to say "RSS 0.9 was introduced in 1999 by Netscape". Personal knowledge is not accepted as a source for articles, though it can be mentioned on talk pages. You might be interested in taking a look at History of web syndication technology which has more references about the early days. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic banned user back

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ed, I posted a message on AGK's page (as the admin who dealt with the AE case) but I see that he is on a wikibreak. Would it be possible for you to have a look at the issue or let me know how I should go about ensuring that the editor stops ? See User_talk:AGK#Topic banned user back. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked two ranges per WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae:

132.160.43.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and
132.160.54.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) per.

If you see him using any other IPs, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He's back violating his topic ban as Lutrinae, here, here, here, and here. I think his account needs to be blocked for a while too. He is not getting the message. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a blatant case, I've issued a block and logged it in WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please warn

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Ed. Could you please formally warn 212.199.205.69 (talk · contribs) about ARBPIA sanctions? This user is a novice, and just violated 1RR on Ariel (city) article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Another admin has given a warning. The IP has been blocked for 3RR violation on Ariel (city). EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Myanmar

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I hope, I am still allowed to post about the work on the Myanmar article itself. 222.127.231.29 (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Superluminal communication

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Can I get you take a look at the recent edit back-and-forth over at Superluminal communication. I fear I'm getting into an edit war with an anon-IP (who I think decided to create a confusing username - User:FyzixFighter2 - in the middle of the dispute). I've tried to initiate discussion on the talk page but the anon-IPs aren't willing to participate. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I take back that the anon-IP hasn't participated on the talk page. Apparently, he or she just did comment on the talk page with this lovely personal attack [47]. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note for the IP and for User:FyzixFighter2. Let's see what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 13

Please see my edits in the talk/discussion section on SL. Thank you for taking part in a psychology experiment investigating censorship, the peer review process and self-anointed - self-censorship. One is reminded of how caged animals don't leave the cage when the door is left open. By the way, the IP addresses are not all linked. There have been other contributions. Bowing out for now, bigger fish to fry than the wikipedia self-anointed cognoscenti. Peace. Mmmwahh big kiss.188.29.157.237 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(Too good to waste, from the SL discussion section)

"FyzixFighter" views reports of work as worth listing. Singular reports be damned! Tenure-ship is no guarantee of freedom from crankdom and that is why there is the peer-review process. Right now, reasonably respectable professors, worldwide, have pet theories or hobbies in sci-fi writing, pigeon poisoning or cat strangling and we can only view these as eccentricities. A sad fact is that these quirks get worse with age... It is vital that a quorum is made, especially for wilder speculations. Even some hint of a respected career and high office is no measure.

May I just add, Jimmy Walsh is an Objectivist and one would do well to read Atlas Shrugged and the sections on the "State Science Institute", then take a look at the peer review process... The university system is a centralised (as in centralised planning), socialistic, monopolistic system which is self serving. Compare the Belle Epoch and the time of the Wright Brothers, Edison, Tesla and more, and compare it with today...

The edits were done in all irony to illustrate how the peer review process kills off new ideas or restricts them to a (usually state funded) clique. You are obviously keen on pushing science forward. Yes we need quality to push out cranks and to stop wasting time and money going down the wrong avenues. The removal edits on the speculative FTL, SL and NC articles illustrate how the status-quo crushes new ideas so that they get no refinement and honing by other minds. You have just taken part in the psychology of a process stultifying science and I thank you for the experiment in human nature. May you have the system and the science you deserve.

Please unlock so that a really good, relevant reference can be put in: Zbinden, H.; Gisin, N., et al, Testing the speed of ‘spooky action at a distance’. Nature, 2008. 454 which FyzixFighter knocked out in their petulance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.157.237 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can offer that reference on the article talk page and use the {{editsemiprotect}} template to get someone to take action on your request. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed can you block "FyzixFighter" as he has removed a perfectly reasonable edit to the superluminal section bringing in the relevance of general covariance/Relativity, the no-communication theorem and discussion about the speed of quantum decoherence (and a great reference too). I cannot see what this person is up to wilfully vandalising entries for no reason. I think it is apparent now who has the problem. This editing is petulant and demonstrates an intolerance to other people's academic input such that I am convinced now that there are COI issues here. Personally I am finding this person obnoxious and a borderline sociopath.

Please release the block and block "FyzixFighter" instead, if there is any fairness. They did it without even any debate. "FyzixFighter's" history shows this behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.157.237 (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are eccentric and seem to show little regard for consensus. Per a courtesy extended to new users, we have refrained from blocking you. Please do something sensible that will help justify our confidence in you. Complaining about experienced editors and adding strange unsourced things to a controversial article doesn't improve your reputation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem Ed. Not that eccentric, I hope. Though you do need to take a good look at FF's actions. Vandalised a perfectly good edit for what? What is he trying to achieve? Does he not agree that an encyclopaedia should highlight the debate in a subject that is still open. It is meant to be educational after all. We agree that references should be high quality.188.29.157.237 (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what "FyzixFighter" wrote:

I removed that reference because the way it was being used constituted original synthesis. As the Zbinden article is about "spooky action at a distance" as opposed to "spooky communication/signaling at a distance", which the quantum paragraphs in this article are about, it's not clear to me the relavance without getting into original synthesis. Can you give an example of the sentence(s) you would like added with the Zbinden source as a reference, and where in the article it would go? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what I wrote:

"spooky action at a distance" is part and parcel of "spooky communication/signaling at a distance" because it refers to the same process, correlated collapse of the wavefunction. This is not even semantics but obfuscation.

You also removed the sections on General covariance, Relativity, no-communication theorem, quantum decoherence which would, perhaps, not show a deep understanding of the subject matter? None of this is original research but part and parcel of what anyone in the field would know.188.29.157.237 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly "FyzixFighter" doesn't know the subject. Yes, Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - and block others more knowledgeable from correcting.

If this is the standard, I'm switching to other wikis and Britannica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.157.237 (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox creating

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I'm that chap with ban because of Bunjevci if you remember. I was just wondering, if I make an article about a writer or about military conflict I can make infobox?

Because when I said I won't edit infoboxes I thought on fascist-related articles.

And I promise that those writers and military conflits and some medals won't be realted to fascism. You can chack it when I finish articles.--Wusten fuchs 17:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Editors did not give a valid reason for deleting the sourced text. The source is about pseudoscience not quackery and the text is well sourced and clearly relevant.

I tried to discuss the issues with other editors. See this diff. See diff. See diff. See diff.

Repeatedly editing against core Wikipedia policies is not a content issue, it is a conduct issue. Wikipedia should rely on a collaborative editing process based on Wikipedia policies, which does not work when editors edit against policy when they have a personal disagreement with mainstream reliable peer-reviewed sources. See WP:WEIGHT.

Per DreamGuy: "Trying to turn this into a reason to get QuackGuru blocked is frankly obscene. The content QuackGuru added could have been edited to improve it, but absolutely did not justify that total removal of the entire section through edit warring and blind reverts. That is just organized bullying and attempt to ignore all contributions by an editor. The content was sourced and valuable. It could have been improved, certainly, by streamlining it, but the end result of the actions of Lugdwigs2 and other editors has been strict kneejerk denial of editing privileges. You state that you want him blocked, and clearly that's the same practical end result as things currently stand with a gang of editors blanket removing anything he does. I have seen this kind of behavior on other articles, and that's exactly the nonsense we need to stop. You do not get to determine that an editor is not allowed to make changes of any sort. You and Ludwigs2 do not WP:OWN the article, and it seems like all you are up to is a strategy of civil POV pushing generally, with many instances of it cracking and becoming highly uncivil instead. That is also what the AE sanctions are intended to prevent."

See here.

According to User:DreamGuy is was "organised bulling". QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're offering a post by DreamGuy from last March. This doesn't help with the three open issues: pseudoscience, chiropractic and vertebral artery dissection. Please add your own comment in the currently-open request at WP:AE. In particular, say whether you will accept the proposed deal regarding pseudoscience. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose the dispute at pseudoscience be taken the the NPOV noticeboard where uninvolved editors could participate and determine the WP:CON based on Wikipedia policy and not a disagreement with mainstream research. I think the debate was mostly by involved editors. I want the broader community to determine the CON for the sourced text from mainstream research. Do you accept my offer. Do you understand there are a lot of editors who believe in pseudocience which makes it difficult for them to edit from a neutral point of view in accordance with policy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:FRINGE editing and WP:MEDRS. The complaint at AE is not that you favor mainstream thinking, but that you edit tendentiously and you have a tin ear for consensus. If you will compromise on the three issues named, then consensus is restored and we can all go home. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to show you that the text is sourced. What text do you think would be sourced rather than deleting the entire paragraph. A compromise would of been rewriting the text than delting it. Editor only reverted and do not attempt to improve the text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No I do not wish to see your argument that the Matute claim is sourced. It is up to the editors at pseudoscience to evaluate that. It seems that they already have, and they do not buy your argument. Please answer my proposal for a compromise on the Matute reference. See the AE thread for details. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You claimed I did not convince other people. Here is some evidence there were editors that did support my attempts to improve the text at said articles.

Pseudoscience: If you take a look at the article history there are other editors that do support the inclusion of the public health matters. There were comments in favor of using the source too. Acording to DreamGuy Removing it entirely seems instead to be an attempt to hide important information from the article to have the end result of pushing a POV. Do you agree with DreamGuy. See Talk:Pseudoscience#Public health issue.

Chiropractic: See this diff. This this diff.

DigitalC at chiropractic related articles has a history of deleting sourced text against policy. Replacing sourced text with OR is not constructive. Deleting sourced text while claiming it is unsupported by the source is not constructive. While I'm trying to imporve different articles DigitalC, the nominator at AE, is trying to derail improvements. For example, DigitalC wants to restore an unreliable Talk:Chiropractic#1979 New Zealand Commission report. The source is too old and not current. I looks like DigitalC is reverting my edits at chiropractic because I am them.

Vertebral artery dissection: There are editors who were convinced that the text is closer to NPOV.

There is another reference that may resolve the dispute. See Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#Vascular_accidents_after_neck_manipulation:_cause_or_coincidence.3F.

See Wikipedia:Consensus#What_consensus_is: "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles."

Do you agree there are WP:FRINGE editors at a lot of the articles I am editing. It is difficult to reach a consensus and improve articles when there is civil POV pushing that don't like what the reliable sources say. Acording to DreamGuy it was civil POV pushing. QuackGuru (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Good news. A new CON has formed to use better sourcing. See Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#Vascular_accidents_after_neck_manipulation:_cause_or_coincidence.3F. I think the new source might resolve the dispute and editors can move on. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the new source that all editors agreed to use. I rewrote the text to match the better sourcing. Then an editor reverted to an older version rather than trying to improve the text. I tried but things did not work out. No consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Speak Now

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I replied with this

How come you guys won't even investigate my sources, they are both the billboard. This is a routine calculation. Two numbers from the same source added together dosen't violate any rules. Billboard.com=Billboard.biz. You just have to pay for most of the charts on billboard.biz and billboard.com only has a few charts some of which are just top 25 or 40 however they are identical to the charts on billboard.biz and numbers are from the same source Neilsen Soundscan. According to Neilsen Soundscan Speak Now sold 2,960,000 in 2010 http://www.billboard.com/#/news/eminem-s-recovery-is-2010-s-best-selling-1004137895.story also according Neilsen Soundscan it sold 563,000 in the first half of 2011 http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/retail/top-selling-albums-of-2011-so-far-1005267092.story so it MUST have sold at least 3,523,000 so far. How is this so hard to understand?

Do you think it is enough?

Do you think the numbers should be combined?Theodorerichert (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is not whether you are correct, but whether you are reverting too much. You are expected to convince the other editors working on this article, and issues about content (such as quality of the sources) usually can't be appealed to admins. You should wait until the other article editors accept your argument as convincing. If you will agree to stop the war, you may still avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Nmatavka restrictions

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hiya EdJohnston,

Sorry to have to do this, but I reverted your closure of the AN discussion and addition of restrictions on the WP:RESTRICT page. I don't really feel terribly strongly about not placing restrictions on the person, but 4-5 days of discussion among 3 editors (one of which was the nominator) seems a bit premature, to say the least. I don't think that the restriction itself is terribly well thought out anyway, but that's a subject more appropriate for AN.

Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs), Mjroots (talk · contribs), HominidMachinae (talk · contribs), Kaldari (talk · contribs), Danger (talk · contribs), and I supported the topic ban. Six editors had supported the topic ban and five-and-a-half days had passed. Community bans from any editing of Wikipedia usually last only two days. This editing restriction, which is less harsh, does not need to last for more. EdJohnston, I endorse your closure of the AN discussion as reasonable and believe Ohms law's reversion without consulting you to be inappropriate. Closes by neutral admins should not be reverted when there has been sufficient time and participation. EdJohnston, would you restore your close? Cunard (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have invited Ohm's law to offer his opinion here of what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, six editors. Five and a half days (how about we just say six days?) Is that enough time and buy in to permanently restrict an otherwise (seemingly) productive editor (at the very least, this certainly isn't a vandal only account)? I really think that y'all are jumping the gun here, for reasons that I added to the section on AN. That being said, I re-opened the section and added my rational, so I've had my say. Whatever happens now, I'm basically content. I think that it would be... unseemly for any of the three if us here to take further actions (in terms of closing the discussion, or whatever), but that's up to you guys.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good faith should usually be extended to good faith contributors. However, User:Nmatavka writes on his userpage: "Hey, my name is Nick, and I've decided to make Wikipedia my own personal playground. As you can see by my abnormally huge language bar, I'm a polyglot, and no, I'm not compensating for anything!" Note the not safe for work link of "anything". Have you reviewed his inappropriate userpage creations and the attack language he wrote at User:Nmatavka/Images under surveillance? Nmatavka's most recent userpage creation contained personal attacks and circumvented community consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp. In light of his behavior, and in light of his decision "to make Wikipedia my own personal playground", the participants of the topic ban discussion have concluded that his disruptive behavior should be curbed. Restricting the creation of further userpages will encourage him to concentrate less on "mak[ing] Wikipedia my own personal playground" and more on building the encyclopedia. I will post a request at ANI for another uninvolved admin to review and close the topic-ban discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Herve Leger

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, I missed your intention at Herve Leger, so I reverted the unusual account before they had a chance to blatantly ignore your requirement that they self-revert. I guess now we have to see what they do next. Looks like these two, err, people, were deliberately trying to be mirror-images of each other. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve the Herve Leger article. We should continue to keep an eye on both of those editors. I thought you were an admin :-). EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
Message added 19:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

militant atheism article talk page threats

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this is a threat to my well being..

That's my deal - mess with me on WP, and pay in the Real World, and I am not afraid of anything that the realigionsist wanna throw at me' [48]

I have no idea whom this person is.. But this is the second type of threat they have made toward me the first one I removed from my talk page. [49]

Stating that "If I get any further problems from you I am going to complain directly to Father Hopko and the various echelons of the Orthodox Church in the USA with which I am far more familiar than you are likely to ever find out,"

I am OK with this person making comments to Father Hopko as Father Whiteford is already on the article talk page right now. At what point does this person whom obviously is familiar with Wikipedia gets some attention from Wiki people other than me? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa - I just noticed this. .. Out of all of the words, taken out of context, I can see how that would be mistaken for a threat. SO let's slow down for a minute here. I can apologize for the tone there. But what I meant was only pay in the sense of the reputation of the church for these shenanigans. Don't read into it anything more than that. But yes, i think it is OK to hold me accountable to make this clarification. But don't over react all paranoid, either. It means pay in the sense of if you get me censored here then pay the price of the history of the event is that the church is up to its old tricks of censorship. That's all and there is nothing more to it. And I was not the one who put the focus on other users, the other user started to put the focus onto me personally and that is the genesis of personal attacks here. THis is classic ripping out of context. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy of my post to User:Devilishlyhandsome

To aid in understanding of Devilishlyhandsome's response below, I've included a copy of my own post to his talk page, which he has already removed:

=== Personal attack at User talk:LoveMonkey ===

In this edit you threatened off-wiki consequences to User:LoveMonkey from people at the Orthodox Church if he persists in his current position. Not only is this a personal attack on LoveMonkey, your threats place you at risk of a block. Please cease this abuse unless you want to get unfavorable attention from admins. As a brand-new user with very strong opinions you are already in a peculiar position. These comments to LoveMonkey do nothing for your reputation. If you have scholarly information that would help the article you are welcome to present it on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

I appreciate your concern however it is based on a misconception

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

You are completely misreading my statements and impugning malevolence where there is none. I was not "threatening off-wiki consequences" to him, I have no clue who he is. I was warning what I would do, and in fact have done, which is to begin the process of distancing myself from the ecumenical religious community and from collaboration with religious in my work. I will still have certain personal friends, including RO, and will discuss this development with them. These are my friends and aquaintances and I am entitled to discuss things with them and not have that labeled a "personal attack" on anybody.

I will be frank and truthful and let them know that this engineered demonization of me, which your "warning" brings to fruition, is grounds for concluding my longstanding friendship with them as religious persons. As "threatened" I am throwing in the towel on all of the apologia which I have been providing for the church. Those days are over. I will be frank and truthful and tell them that the church is all about dogma and demonizing its opponents and is so good at it they even pull that agenda off on WP.

This shift in my own personal thinking is not a "consequence" to the other user at all. Please reconsider your view of it as such. Also, I have every right to inform my RO friends and aquaintences such as Father Thomas.

This shift, BTW, is as much a result of research for the article as it is the rough treatment (threats of investigation, accusations, now warnings). But it is a done deal. I will inform Father Thomas. The WP user will not become known and is therefore not suffering consequences.

So this matter is now over as far as I am concerned: a typical Christian paranoia about dissent has now led to an unpleasant warning which is very unfair. Unless you acknowledge that on second reading you see that my statement was no threat, I will consider myself to have been subjected to an unadjusted suppression, at WP, because of RO,and that is that.

I will however never sit down again at explicitly ecumenical interfaith dinners, unless I receive an adjustment which would be a reconsideration on your part and a retraction of the warning or a clear statement from the church that this is an incident of (a) a chilling effect on free speech (b) at the instance of an evangelical motive.

In other words, the church may lay the blame more on WP than on the church. But es it stands, you have placed a one-sided, conclusory and unfair warning on the innocent party. You are giving me a bad rap. I won't be the first thoughtful editor to leave WP disatisfied with failure to meet its lofty goals, but then it wouldn't be the first time I have been disappointed by WP.

My experience of WP is pretty much now ruined unless you acknowledge jumping to conclusions, LM apologizes, or some overwhelming consensus vindicates me. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, I don't expect it to happen. I will probably have no choice but to find other venues which are more resilient to the kind of gambit which has been successfully employed here on Militant atheism, whether or not there is a reconsdieration or apology, both of which I believe I am owed. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Reconsiseration on my own part.

Having just now noticed the complaint you did receive, I withdraw the suggestion that you jumped to conclusions or jumped the gun. It looks bad, out of context. I think your warning was probably a pretty level headed response if you were short on time. But in context, and if you delve into this matter more deeply, time permitting, you will see that by consequences I mean only exposure of truth of the matter to the light of day. Part of the truth is noting that I am getting a bum rap for "personal attack" it is actually LoveMonkey who started the personlization of the work by insinuating that I was engaged in illegal socking as a POV-driven ploy to silence me and there was hinting around that I would be check usered which means that where I work would become disclosed and he could use this information to and the information would become available that I was interested in Militant atheism which would (a) force me to completely revise and shift all of my professional alliances because many people I do work with would freak out and (b) force me to just go ahead and publicly, in my own real name, defend the atheists, although i myself am not one. and (c) notify my friends and colleagues that my hand was forced because of an engineered controversy at WP/Militant athiesm in which LoveMonkey artfully shifted the debate from the editing and the article to me personally.

But yes so far your actions are not inappropriate because my wording there could be taken the wrong way. I think I have, and if I did not, I do apologize for that poor choice of words because they could be taken the wrong way and not as an assertion of the basic human right to seek redress in the court of public opinion. But in context, not really, and, more importantly, now that I am clearly, unambiguously and credibly explaining my exact meaning, which is lawful, ethical and appropriate consequences, there should be no further hearing of these auto-victimization complaints from LoveMonkey, who should himself be scrutinized for policy violations and personal attacks. As far as I am concerned, I am apologizing for hastily written harsh wording which could be misinterpreted,out of context, but which, in light of this clarification, are of no interest now for any purpose except for the purposes of a POV warrior. So let's keep our eye on the ball here which is to seek Truth (in verifiable reliable secondary sources) and not to pander to a childish round of accusations and victim posturing. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Complaint

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

I want to file a complaint against Lawrencekhoo, BigK HeX and Dark Charles. They remove sourced material and include poorly sourced material in a blatant effort to damage the integrity of the Austrian School article. They cite a bogus consensus, which doesn't exist. The issue has been bullied through before, as can be seen on the talk page. I want to know how it can be okay to gather a bunch of friends and destroy WP articles simply by reverting a real editor's work enough times that he faces the 3 revert rule. Why is this allowed, even when appeals are made for it t stop? Misessus (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We have talked previously at User talk:Misessus#Austrian wars. I suggested then that you could make some uncontroversial improvements to articles on Austrian economists. If you have done so, please let me know. If this is just episode #79 in your previous crusade, I won't get involved. At least two other admins have recently commented on your talk page and that is probably sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I thought there was insufficient information on Fyodorov in the article to warrant him having a whole picture. Especially when the biographical section doesn't even include pictures of young Konstantin or anything similar. If a future version includes considerably more information about Fyodorov, it should go back. As it stands, it merely says they worked in the same institute, which merits a link alone, I think. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In like manner, the Russian version includes pictures of his relatives, coworkers, and similar thinkers because it actually has quantities of relevant text for the image to accompany. Otherwise, it seems gratuitous. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Raulseixas - Reply

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there ED, VASCO here, longtime no "see",

some trouble here, as i agree with Raul on this one. The only difference between him and me is i have started endless discussions on this, saying that Spanish and English (this being EN.WIKI) speak about the clubs' names with and without the "Real", 50/50 really (well, except Real Madrid C.F. and Real Sociedad), no one seems to believe me, saying that it is the COMMONNAME when it's not all that crystal-clear.

Besides, we could still use the full name in the storyline, leaving box duly compressed. After all of this, am i also a candidate for blocking? LOL!

Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In an unrelated matter, could you change C.D. Málaga back to the original CD Málaga? It has created endless redirects in players and team articles, all because of two dots (FC Barcelona does not have those, as Valencia CF, Sevilla FC, etc, etc). Thanks - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am so happy to hear that you and Raulseixas are now friends! If you want C.D. changed to CD please open a move discussion; I am totally confused as to which is better for referring to the club in English text. You must be saying that the majority of Wikipedia articles use 'CD'. Can you give examples? EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Loja CD, CD Logroñés (and this was a top flight club before it folded), RCD Mallorca, RCD Espanyol, at this the last three use dots in their original form (and the same goes for the FC's, the CF's and akin), it just does not show in their WP name - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Interesting", the user to whom you sent the message related to the C.D. Málaga article, did not even bother to answer you or me, and he's been active here... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a 'Whatlinkshere' to see how many articles link to CD Malaga as opposed to C.D. Malaga. It appears that CD Malaga is the overwhelming choice. If we don't get any response from User:Djln in 24 hours it might be time to consider a move. Do you know if CD versus C.D. has ever been discussed at WT:FOOTY? EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember once discussing with a chap over Panathinaikos FC (it was written like that when i first started editing WP, then the dots were inserted, now they have been removed again!), he said it had to do with how the club was named today. Not very logical in my opinion, for all i've stated before (i.e. FC Barcelona being written with the dots originally, and not having them here).

Oh, and it seems User:Satori Son - another admin i frequently reach out to - has done the job...thank you both and happy weekend! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...for fixing my page move screw up at International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research. – ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No prob. If they wanted us to spell it right, they should have picked a shorter name! EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you.

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My apologies, but I inadvertantly created an article that already existed. el-Melek ez-Zahir needs to be deleted, since Az-Zahir Ghazi already exists. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for the advice that I'd been reported for edit-warring. I assume I'll get clobbered but I don't like taking unfairness lying down. Opbeith (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a new article I'm writing

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. We interacted a couple of months ago, when I added "Ayn Rand" to the {{uw-sanctions}} template. I'm currently working on a biographical article on George E. Crothers — an important alumnus, trustee, and benefactor of my alma mater, Stanford University (and not to be confused with George Crothers, the Irish cricket player). Once the page is in decent shape, I'm planning to nominate it for DYK. If you have any time to go take a look (User:Richwales/Drafts/George E. Crothers) and give me feedback, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Good luck with the article! EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got some followup comments/questions on my talk. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Greater Armenia (political concept)

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would it be possible for you to protect the article Greater Armenia (political concept)? It appears that two anon IPs are edit warring over the article and have not tried to use the talk page. User:Takabeg has initiated a discussion on the talk page, but as of yet neither anon IP has felt the need to participate. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected. I have also added {{ArbCom ruling notice}} to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Webó

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there ED, VASCO here,

i would like to get your assistance if possible in this article, vandalism of the highest order, and i think it's probably the UK "user" that has been on my case for more than one year, after i protected some pages/blocked some IPs due to vandalism.

First, i thought it was just an overzealous Stoke City F.C. fan who "wanted" the player to play for his club, but after his last edit (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pierre_Web%C3%B3&diff=442825158&oldid=442810246), this is getting personal i believe. He removed my references, even those that had nothing to do with the "transfer" to Stoke City (which has not happened, i just visited that team's website), then removed all my other additions overall, and THE ENTIRE set of categories and interwikis.

Please help, any assistance you decide is fine by me! No point in blocking that IP i believe, because if he is who i think he is, he has TONS of them.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks to be a case of conventional vandalism so I've applied semiprotection at Pierre Webó. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please warn

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Ed. Floccinauci (talk · contribs) has violated 1RR in Ahava article ([50],[51]). Could you please formally warn him about ARBPIA sanctions? Thank you. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. Just to notify you of this.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wustenfuchs should not be editing this article, since Crusaders (guerilla) is too closely associated with fascism. The Crusaders group is identified in their article as being founded by people who were mostly Ustaše members. The Ustaše are described in the lead of their article as a fascist movement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought being related is to have WP:WikiProject Fascism (or similiar) template on discussion page, or have some fascist-related categories, i didn't saw "ustaše" category. I didn't make any important changes. I won't edit this article any more.--Wusten fuchs 20:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

^ [52]
^ [53]
^ ^a ^b De la Torre, Miguel (2008). "Las profesiones en México: condiciones económicas, culturales y sociales". Sociología y Profesión. Monterrey: Nuevo León Autonomous University (UANL). p. 116. ISBN 9702400511. La economía de América del Norte se encuentra bien definida y estructurada en tres principales áreas económicas: el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), el CARICOM y el Mercado Común Centroamericano {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)