User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 35

Serb 1914

• Serb1914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ask you to block Serb1914 as he is continuing to wage edit wars on several articles. This cannot be tolerated. I (and other contributors) can not even work normally. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And he is promoting violent Serb nationalism, Greater Serbia and even denying the genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion, does 'working normally' include discussing your ideas with other editors? You and User:Serb1914 could be blocked by any admin for breaking the WP:3RR rule. It looks like you have made nine reverts at Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina). If you expres willingness to wait for consensus, you might be able to avoid a block. The simplest thing for me is to block both of you, if some other admin doesn't do so first. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've started a talk on the talk page of The Destroyer of Nyr and on the page SNSD, but he refused talk and started violent edit war and personal attacks, so the situaton is very clear.--Serb1914 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They're both at or past 4RR today on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović, Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and Alliance of Independent Social Democrats. Meters (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:The Destroyer of Nyr was blocked 36 hours by another admin for edit warring. But The Destroyer did something useful by opening up a discussion at Talk:Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina). I encourage anyone interested in Bosnian political parties to participate there. Bosnian topics will benefit from the attention of editors who can read Serbo-Croatian. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Tulisa

Thanks for Talk page message, yes, have indicated on singer's Talk page that agree with AndrewA new dab being made the baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I've now closed the move discussion at Talk:Tulisa (singer)#Requested move 17 January 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

User: EdJohnston, would you like to act for something on the behavior of this editor.

His edit been removed by the neutral editors as below :

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Even after different warning given as below;

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]

You are acting so stern under WP:ARBIPA like on User:Noughtnotout and others. This fellow is habitual offender and not responding to earlier section specific warnings and last POV advice given above by User:Bjelleklang. His material pasted are removed thrice from a BLP article of DB in a week on POV ground by neutral editors. Is any further proofs are required?

Please act suitably.Statewatch (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Two admins have recently been looking into the Daiwoodi Bohra dispute, User:Black Kite and User:Bjelleklang. In case User:Summichum is not behaving correctly, he is already alerted to the WP:ARBIPA samctions. I trust this will be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

After warning on JAN,23 he has continued his partisan activity one way or another and on 29th he crossed all the limit and added the same material which was deleted by one of admin. You are so active and alerting all admin/editors of sanctions and banned 3-4 editors instantly within few mins/hours without giving them fair chance. Here this fellow doing the things of his will/choice even after one week of warning. You still feel that warning sufficient. Is it not strange?223.176.135.192 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are probably a sock, which may explain why this report may not get as much attention as otherwise. Anyway I've explained my concerns to User:Summichum. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks EDJ, All the valid reasons, argument, justified concerns shown in perfect Wikipedia style are opposed in the name of sock and the voice got eliminated. Thanks again for explaining the thing to the user. Hope you get succeed. 117.239.216.82 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Donald Ewen Cameron

I came across this article today for the first time. The article states that the (deceased) subject engaged in all sorts of extraordinary ethical violations. The sources for these statements are

1) "In addition to LSD, he experimented with various paralytic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power" - no citation given

2) "His "driving" experiments consisted of putting a subject into a drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple statements. These experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression" - A book, called "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate" published by NYTimes Books. The jacket flap describes the book as "John Marks reveals what was perhaps the most sinister activity ever engaged in by an organ of the United States government. He describes how the government conducted a series of secret programs to find ways to control human behavior.", which hardly sounds like a dispassionate academic investigation of the story.

3) "These experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression; many suffered permanent debilitation after these treatments." Such consequences included incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents" - sourced to an anti-ECT blog

4) "Naomi Klein states in her book The Shock Doctrine that Cameron's research and his contribution to MKUltra were not about mind control and brainwashing, but "to design a scientifically based system for extracting information from 'resistant sources.' In other words, torture."[21] She then cites Alfred W. McCoy: "Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method." - Sourced to "The Shock Doctrine", which is described here as "In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.", which again hardly appears to be a dispassionate and careful reciting of the facts, more so the commentary of someone with a political position to push.

How much of this is allowed? The blogs I would think are clearly out of line, but non-textbook texts written by people pushing a political POV hardly seem to me to be sufficiently reliable to use to make these sorts of judgements about somone who presumably has living relatives.

I have no prior knowledge of the subject of this man's life or work. It may have really been that bad. But I worry about the sources here. I hate mass marketed books as sources because they are often written to promote a POV or to tell a good story so as to sell a lot of copies, but I don't know if my feelings are reflected in the sourcing rules. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's well-established that Cameron (as a highly-respected psychiatrist) did some questionable experiments on people that most likely would not be approved by ethics committees today. Just for one opinion see an op-ed published by Leonard S. Rubenstein in the New York Times on November 7, 1988. The title of his op-ed (which must have been approved by the NYT editors) was "The C.I.A. and the evil doctor". If Ewen Cameron were a living person special requirements would apply. Since Cameron died in 1967, BLP is not in force and the steps open to you seem to be those of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I see enough crazy, poorly sourced stuff posted in articles here that I found some of this troubling, but if he really was a bad guy I probably won't worry about it further. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Aergas Continues to wage edit war on 'mexicans of european descent' page post-ban

[7]

If you look at our DRN, we had with Robert McClellan here [8] , the conclusion of that DRN was to specifically include the 7/8ths european ancestry designation in the body rather than the title, yet, aergas has unilaterally removed this once again. I am reporting this now, because I genuinely don't want to escalate this into an edit war. Alon12 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Alon12, Robert McClenon was clear enough when he directly told you that the DNR was inconclusive [9], why do you ignore everybody? after the blocking ended I started to discuss the issues with and called other editors as is supposed to be, but you are in the same plan you were two weeks ago. Didn't you learn anything? Aergas (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

The guys are battling for a few days in several pages. Each made a 3RR violation here. But I would hate to report them to 3RRNB: they are good contributors. Maybe some kind of a warning? My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see an actual 3RR there, and the two guys are discussing this quite a bit, mostly on user talk. Each of them is already notified under WP:ARBEE in case of further trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. I also noticed a discussion between two other users on your talk page. You gave them notices and protected the article in dispute. It seems that one of them just resumed edit warring on this page, immediately after expiration of your protection [10], without having consensus on this article talk page. Given my previous history, I will not participate in these disputes any longer. Just letting you know as an admin who protected this article... My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to help, you could start a new section on the talk page at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany. Try to summarize the issues in dispute and give the current status, if you can. At present no admin would understand the issues without reading 10,000 words of discussion, which they are unlikely to do. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The dispute I had with the other user was settled and I added some text back since it was agreed that it was not coat racking.[11]

The user above wants all text sourced to Russian historians removed. I told him to start a new discussion about this and prove his point. I don't understand why he came here. -YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the user above recently reverted without consensus a large piece of text from the article,[12] which others have spent time discussing and editing in the last few days.
Oddly, above he claimed that he "will not participate in these disputes any longer." I don't know what to say... -YMB29 (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@EDJohnston. I realize that the thread is very long, but one should really read it from the very beginning to understand what is happening: a prolonged WP:TE dispute between YMB29 on one "side" and all other users on the other "side". Same in the edit history of this page [13],[14],[15],[16],[17] (reverting edits by five other different contributors). Same on other pages [18],[19],[20] (countless reverts like that [21],[22]). But whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What do those diffs supposed to prove? Where do you see me reverting against consensus? Obviously, the page has been a target of POV warriors, who seek to make changes without consensus. The revert I mentioned above shows that you are guilty of this too.[23]

Do I need to post the diffs of you following me to four different articles to revert edits that I have made in the past few years, right after you returned to editing last month? I don't think this is the place to post that. -YMB29 (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Huns talk page

I have warned the IP, which I suspect is Erik the Swed, from adding their opinion/information into my comments made on the Huns talk page.[24] After giving the IP a warning on their talk page, Erik the Swed reverted my edit, placing the IP/Erik's opinions within my comments. Can you resolve this issue? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have semied both article and talk for the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to get into any drag out dispute here, especially since Bear here posted implied IRL threats to my talk page. However If you review the contribution I have added three new proposals with source and links to the talk page which directly relate to the article. I cleaned up the prior revisions to which Bear complained about for him, only his rollback brought them back. I appeal for calm in this as I have 7 other sources on DNA and entomological details to contribute. Can you please unlock the talk page so that I can continue contributions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Swed (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me that you are abusing multiple accounts. Perhaps you can find a way to make useful contributions elsewhere until the semi expires. This would be a good time for you to announce whether you've previously edited under a different account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

actually I created this account because it was just using my IP addresses (which is what I believe wiki wants right?), so no this is not account abuse. Its also worth observing that I was actually contributing to the discussion by providing online sources to references made so people can read original sources directly. I am even in the process of getting UC Burkley to release a source paper that is not available online, yet is sighted multiple times. While I admit my formatting was poor that it hardly a reason to have threats made against me or just a blanket rollback under clearly BS claims. I've avoided contributing in the past because people had such horror stories about meeting page bullies, which I can see is actually a' thing' and I have to say has really soured my views on continuing to contribute to subjects I have studied and researched some 20 years now. So the answer is that I have to buzz off for 7 days, right.Erik the Swed (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You are still able to talk to User:Kansas Bear on their talk page. Maybe you can make a persuasive case there. If you do so, try not to break up anyone else's comments with your own post. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean beg the guy who jumped all over me and threatened me? Ahh no. I am sure he will revert everything I posted the moment it unlocks. Clearly the loudest voice always wins, just as people warned me. I've given up on contributing. Its been an entertaining 25 hour experiment in how good intentions means nothing. Good day.Erik the Swed (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing of discussion on User:Gsfelipe94

I'm concerned about your closing of this issue as it seems in your closing you haven't addressed what I see as the issue at all. What is the position on the editors refusal to discuss the issue, the editor's continual claim of ownership of the article, and the otherwise uncivil behavior? In my view, the inclusion of the information in the article is secondary to that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor has previously been blocked once (correctly) so I think the problem has been drawn to his attention. What remains now is to resolve the content dispute and I've suggested how you can do that. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard closure

I had posted here sometime ago.[25] Then asked Callannecc to know what he thinks, but he seems to be offline for a while. Would you like to see if reverting the implementation of the outcome from AN is valid or not, also see discussion at the talk page of Sunrise. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the issue but don't have any comment to make. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Terence McKenna

Hi Ed, the semi-protection has expired and the Russian guy is back again,

• Terence McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 91.122.4.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.110.6.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 89.110.24.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Systemizer/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive

(If anyone thinks it's worth the bother, those SPIs should be merged.) Manul ~ talk 18:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My last semiprotection of Terence McKenna was for a year and it seems that wasn't long enough. Since the socks have shown they are prepared to go on forever, I've gone ahead with indefinite semi. User:Bishonen has blocked the first IP you listed above and we might consider action against the other two if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

86.188.154.51

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

Hi EdJohnston. It turns out that the account and the ip here were indeed the same user, ([26], [27]). Could you please confirm whether there are any other sleepers? This also seems rather odd for a first website edit. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not being a checkuser, I can't look for sleepers. But I'll leave a note for Nograviti asking them to avoid editing while logged out if they intend to work on contentious topics. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

About the Daniel move...

Just wanted to let you know that the moves from Daniel to Daniel (biblical figure) and from Daniel (name) to Daniel resulted in several incorrect incoming links to Daniel. I'm in no way against the close, but it may be beneficial to have Daniel temporarily set as the disambiguation page to bring attention to its amount of incoming links (possibly via the WP:DPL process when their related bot tags the page with an incoming link banner.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unclear whether this would actually speed up the link fixes. I checked the first incoming link to Daniel in the list, and it turned out to actually be actually a reference to the Book of Daniel and not a link that should be changed to Daniel (biblical figure). This kind of problem existed before, and presumably the move of the article did not make it worse. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I actually dealt with something similar when Wolverine (comics) was moved to Wolverine (character); I eventually found out that some of the links were intended for subjects that didn't even have the word "Wolverine" in its title, such as Logan (comics). Anyways, this analogy is to illustrate that if Daniel is either made or redirects to the disambiguation page, that DPL bot would be able to register the links, and allow editors to fix them with haste. Also, speaking of which, I added a link to Book of Daniel to Daniel (disambiguation) per what you stated. Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can check and fix incorrect incoming links even if the page is not tagged as a disambiguation page. If it is going to be one, move the dab there; anthroponomy pages are not ambiguous topics. bd2412 T 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• What action are you proposing? EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing any action - I have removed the dab tags from Daniel (currently a page on the name) because it is not a dab. I will work on the page more and fix any errant incoming links later tonight. Actually, I would even like to merge in any encyclopedic content from Daniels (name) and McDaniel, and then break out the lists of names from the anthroponomic content. bd2412 T 22:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed most of the incoming links (in the article namespace) that now correctly point to Daniel (biblical figure) (and in some cases Book of Daniel). Incoming links to Daniel (name) have been redirected to Daniel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

About that move... Ed, your close did not say how you chose between the various suggestions about which article should get the title Daniel. At least a couple of us supported on the basis of Daniel becoming the disambig page. Did you not notice? Or ignore? Or did you consider and decide but forgot to mention? Inquiring minds want to know... Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Silly me. I thought they were leaving it up to the closer's discretion. Anyway, my impression was that more people in the discussion wanted Daniel (name) at the base name. My own research seemed to show more page views for Daniel (name) than for the DAB page. The 'name' page (for a personal name) is in effect another kind of DAB page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

So why not say so in your close statement? Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Now done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand the rationale for the close. Two of the "supports" were explicitly for the disambiguation page (Dicklyon, 65.94.40.137) and only one (bd2412) was for the name page, but even then the comment was "I would suggest that the primary topic is just the given name, now at Daniel (name), but would not find it to be a great wrong if the disambiguation page were at this title." How can you say "My impression was that more people in the discussion wanted Daniel (name) at the base name"? StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Both User:Jeffro77 and User:BD2412 preferred Daniel (name) at Daniel. An IP editor 65.94.40.137 (talk · contribs) explicitly favored the DAB page at Daniel and I think User:Dicklyon also favored it. Did you notice a clear statement from anyone else? Do you think there should be a follow-on move discussion to decide what should occupy the base name Daniel? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really get a chance to say anything. I opposed the move, but now that there is a consensus to move it, I strongly prefer a move to the diambiguation page. So yes - there should be another discussion. (And we still have the issue of how to disambiguate the hundreds of incoming links...) StAnselm (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not open a new move discussion at Talk:Daniel. You could ask for Daniel (disambiguation) to be moved to Daniel, and the current Daniel page back to Daniel (name). EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but the thing is, you've said there was consensus to move to the name page, when there wasn't any. StAnselm (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a consensus to move Daniel to Daniel (biblical figure), but not everyone seemed to care about what happened to the base name. You participated in the move discussion yourself, opposing the main move, but without expressing an opinion on what should happen to the base name if the article was moved. Something had to be done with the base name, and if there is no obvious consensus, the closer might do whatever they think best. If you disagree with my choice, ask for a new discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Daniel

An editor has asked for a Move review of Daniel. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A Streetcar Named Desire

Your note indicated to me that I should respond. But I do not know how to respond. I am hoping that this is a response. I took a look at the article "A Streetcar Named Desire," and thought that it deserved an "F." It was a mess. I tried to update the plot summary. Immediately, Stickman "undid" all my work, and made sniping remarks to me, with no edits of his own to correct me, and no constructive criticism. Since then, whenever I make an edit, he immediately deletes most of what I do, adding back some of my own ideas in a rewritten middle school style. I have actually never been able to make the edits that I would like, because he immediately changes everything around. I am aware that my plot summary is too long, but he chops up all of my edits, before I get a chance to edit my own work. He is trying to write a plot summary, yet he has declared to me that he cannot remember the plot. Well, I remember the plot, very well. And I am aware that some of his recollections regarding the plot summary are WRONG, incorrect, false, and not true. He is mean-spirited to me, and childish, like a middle school brat. The silliness of his comments and edits undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. I only want to make Wikipedia better. I stopped reading his comments because all he does is obstruct my work and hurt my feelings. If you think that his childish sniping about my improvements to the article are good for Wikipedia, then I will be happy to bow out, and let him have complete control of that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinbriar (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is to take a break from working on A Streetcar Named Desire. You've been trying to discuss at Talk:A Streetcar Named Desire (play)#Discussion and criticism of plot summary but the results are disappointing. People are likely to complain about WP:TLDR since you seem unable to write briefly on talk pages. You are already over 11,000 bytes of text in just that one conversation. This is a bad omen if the task at hand is to write a crisp plot summary. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, what is your opinion of my handling of this? I admit that it might have been better if I had been less revert-happy but I'd like to know what I could/should have done differently. Thanks, TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The only other thing you might have done is open an WP:RFC on one of the disputed points. The WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard is another option. To improve article quality, a WP:GA review is a good idea but it's not always easy to find reviewers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A user is over 3RR at Kitchener, Ontario

Thanks. I've blocked the user and unprotected the pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Ialiabbas reported by User:Toddy1

You closed it as a duplicate report. Could you please show me where this other report is, I tried using the search and was only able to find the report made by Toddy1.[28] Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The two reports that concern the Husayn ibn Ali article and involve the same two people are:

• WP:AN3#User:Ialiabbas reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Duplicate report)
• WP:AN3#User:Toddy1 reported by User:Ialiabbas (Result: no violation)

EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but how is either a duplicate report of the other? One was Toddy1 reporting Ialiabbas; the second was a retaliatory report by Ialiabbas. The latter concluded Ialiabbas' report was unfounded but no conclusion was ever made about Ialiabbas' editing. Edward321 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If a two-person war is reported, the closing admin usually checks to see if either party deserves a block. So one closure should cover both. Since you have raised the issue, I took another look. I see there were unusual edits by User:Ialiabbas but the article was protected on 7 February. So it's too late for any follow-up action. If this resumes, report again and try to explain in your report that the editing is unusual. For example, the editor was piping article names to differently-Romanized names in the infobox. It's hard to see any justification for that. If you disagree with how something is named, a move discussion is needed. You can't just pipe the name to a different spelling wherever it appears. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 has filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ialiabbas. If Ialiabbas is found to be a sock, this might save us the effort of trying to persuade him to follow WP policy regarding names. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

JW articles

Hi. You recently semi-protected a couple of articles that are being edited by an IP editor who will not work collaboratively. The editor is engaging in the same behaviour at Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917) and Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The latter includes persistent reinstatement of a copyright violation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This[29][30] is getting silly—particularly the edit summary, in addition to the continued misrepresentations at ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You could suggest that he follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Advising people to stop changing IPs seldom works. They insist that it's their inherent right as Wikipedia editors or that it's beyond their control. Semiprotection is sometimes justified if a set of IPs is reverting an article and two or more of them seem to be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not that concerned that the IP has changed, but that the editor has twice changed their story about whether the edits by the other IPs were his. This is in addition to other false claims the editor has made about consensus and sources. For these reasons, I don't see an intention on the editor's part to edit collaboratively.

The editor has indicated at ANI that he no longer intends to edit articles (and that instead I will face the wrath of his deity.) But if he does continue to edit, I'll try to get him to pursue proper dispute resolution channels.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

When people promise to leave a topic you can't always count on it happening. If there is more trouble, filing an SPI may eventually be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

He's now moved on to Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

...and Charles Taze Russell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had just about enough of you! Since you have been following me around to different articles I decided to check your contributions and find you secretly posting about me on this talk page. Apparently the ANI you've been posting to wasn't enough? After you obsessively reverted all my sourced edits to the few pages from yesterday, I decided to disengage and move on to other pages. But you've followed me to new pages and continue to revert everything I do without discussion! I understand that there is a subtle bias against IP editors, so this probably won't happen, but you really should be topic banned for this sort of ownership and harassing behavior. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

My comments here are hardly a 'secret'. I simply advised the admin who acted on your initial inappropriate behaviour that you are engaging in the same inappropriate behaviour at other aricles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor has returned to using 73.11.72.255.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

He is continuing with the original behaviour of editing articles and then reverting to his versions without any attempt to discuss:

• Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
• Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline
• Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs
• Jehovah's Witnesses practices
• Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse
• Raymond Franz
• Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
• Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions

He's not even pretending to try to edit collaboratively and his behaviour now appears to be purely retributive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop hypocritical behavior

My comments for Akdamar Island WP:HERE , and my entry according this policy is completely appropriate, because is about Akdamar Island's status. Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) removal act are not cited in wikipedia policy and he and his supporter Orduin (talk · contribs) vandalising my entry with such rude comments "nonsense". my sources are reliable, one of them was also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? you didn't stop this vandalism and harassment , but you warning me. which is a hypocritical behavior. Please stop immediately this rude vandalism and harassment. at least Akdamar ısland belongs to Turkey and is not associated with Armenian neither with Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talk • contribs)

If you expect to have your new material accepted on Wikipedia, it would be better for you to negotiate patiently. Your statement that Akdamar Island is not associated with Armenia is hard to fathom. The island is not part of the territory of Armenia but there is an Armenian church there and it seems that Armenians lived there for 700 years. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Turkey is an secular country ,this Church belong also to Turkey, it is in Turkey , we living in 2015 Alesgeriy (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More edit war

Serb1914, despite having received a topic ban from Balkan topics is edit warring again, this time on Party of Democratic Action (going from violently defending Serb political parties to violently attacking Bosniak political parties). He has also logged out to go around the topic ban several times, mostly at Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović. I am asking you to intervene, as it is obvious he isn't respecting his sanctions. He just won't stop. Also, take a look at Karelian P. (for unconstructive editing on the same articles). The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:In ictu oculim

Thanks, should be blocked for vandalism warnings maybe. Kauffner did an impersonation sock on this name a year or so ago, but I'd say this is unconnected, not remotely the style of User:NotUnusual the current SPI, for example looks like an unrelated teenager who has tried to add a Hebrew plural onto a latin Vanitas term. Thanks for spotting it however. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Single-purpose account

Could you please take you look at this? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Notified User:Alesgeriy of the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions and left a comment at ANI. If he continues on this track he is likely to break 3RR or become eligible for a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

stop distortion. my entry is not about armenia-azerbaijan, neither genocide etc. and stop immediately this trolling and vandalism Alesgeriy (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The sanctions apply to either Armenia or Azerbaijan, and they are broadly construed. If you believe that Akdamar Island is unrelated to Armenia you must not have been reading carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A never ending problem :(

• Malik-Shah I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I did as you suggested about trying to fix the problem in the Malik-Shah I article by going to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but it did not really work. Qara xan is removing sourced information in the article, yet no one takes actions against him and i am still unable to continue my expanding, since i am kinda stuck in the article. I am really lost and don't know what to do. Since the article hasn't been touched in sometime, do you think i can safely continue my expanding? It seems like you have seen what has happened one the talk page of the article - if you think my tone maybe have been a bit harsh, then please take a look here [31]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are in a two-person dispute that is likely to go for a long time. Why not see if you can get User:Kansas Bear to comment? It looks like User:Qara xan asked User:Nedim Ardoğa already but did not get a response. User:Meters has also edited recently and might be willing to comment. If neither you nor Qara xan can find any third parties to comment, then WP:DRN may be the best option. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about reverting, edit wars, and 3RR

Hi. You recently closed an edit war ticket in which I was involved. In order to edit on some pages, I think I have to become more familiar with how editing policies and guidelines are actually administered. My questions is, regarding reverting, edit wars and the 3RR, is making changes to someone else's edit considered reverting?

I asked the same question on the Help Desk page and was referred to WP:Reverting, where I found this:

"Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version."

I'm not sure how open to interpretation that or anything else is when it comes to potentially contentious editing situations. Thanks. --Tsavage (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Reverting is only an essay. The policy, and the definition of a revert, is given in WP:Edit warring. "A revert means undoing the actions of other editors". You were technically over 3RR, because even a rewrite usually means deleting someone else's text. Now that you have reached this point, you should get consensus before reverting or rewriting any further. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm still unclear, and this isn't about the ticket I was just involved in. In recent editing, I find editors making detailed reference to various policies, guidelines, and essays on certain pages where ownership and strong opinion run high, in order to support their decisions. I'm trying to learn more.

The definition "A revert means undoing the actions of other editors" begs the question, what constitutes "undoing"? In the WP:Edit warring definition, revert is linked to Help:Reverting, which says, "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version." That seems to be consistent with the essay, in that editing a sentence is not necessarily or usually returning it to a previous version, in the way undo, rollbacks, and re-saving archived pages are. Is reversion ultimately a judgement call on a case by case basis?

I just leave situations when they get ridiculous, there are other things to do, but the amount of wiklawyering going on some places often amounts to bullying, so I'm...interested. Thanks again. --Tsavage (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There is room for interpretation on EW, but it is wise for you to be careful. Complaints at WP:AN3 are generally closed by a single admin, so you are stuck with whatever interpretation that admin uses. It is best to stop after three edits if there's any chance they can be seen as reverts. 'Restoring a previous version' is the old definition of a revert, but I don't know of any current admins who rely on it. If you are hoping to find perfect consistency in any area of Wikipedia policy you'll probably be disappointed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a clear and useful answer. Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

EE question

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User "My very best wishes" has been following me to articles that I have edited in the last few years to revert my edits.[32][33][34] He did the same thing last month.[35][36][37][38] This is obviously edit warring and wiki hounding, but should this be reported to AE, because all of these articles are in the EE topic area? -YMB29 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Has anyone tried to get consensus on whether the remarks of Yelena Senyavskaya are a reliable source for our historical articles? I suggested in a section above that User:My very best wishes ought to make a good summary of the issues at a suitable page, for example at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany. It helps if whoever makes the summary has access to the sources, for example Beevor's book. If you want sanctions against anyone else, your data needs to be short, punchy and persuasive. Nothing either of you has posted so far on my user talk is of high enough quality yet to justify a noticeboard discussion, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC) I can try to write a short summary of the dispute on that page later. However, it is basically that many Western sources write about mass Soviet crimes in Germany, while Russian sources refute this (without denying that crimes occurred). A group of like-minded users active in the EE area wants to remove the Russian sources from a number of articles here under any pretext (unreliable, fringe, coat racking...). As for Senyavskaya being reliable, I have recently created a new section[39] that has information about her from Western publications. However, I realize that no matter what evidence I present, users "My very best wishes" and Sayerslle probably will always try to find reasons to reject it. -YMB29 (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC) I did not really try to justify anything because I do not have time. But that is what I think: Yes, I can easily explain why sources by YMB29 should not be used [40],[41],[42], but he does not listen [43]. He claims a well-known historian to be a "blog" and refers to real blog by ordinary folks [44],[45]. Many other contributors also tried to explain him something like that, but without any effect [46],[47].[48][49] Yes, he is involved in long term slow motion edit wars on multiple pages. Should I provide a series of his 6 to 12 obvious reverts on almost every page he edited? He frequently claims that his reverts were consistent with policy because a consensus was on his side, and he therefore promise to continue his edit wars (do you need diffs?). These claims are wrong because there was no any RfC or other discussions closed by uninvolved admin as "consensus". Instead, we have numerous extremely long discussions where YMB29 expresses his disagreement with multiple users. My very best wishes (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC) If you want to change something in the articles, it is up to you to show that consensus has changed, and not by reverting. As for you insisting that a blog entry (yes this[50] is a blog, it even says so in the url) is more important than what two reliable sources say, this just shows that you are not willing to admit that you are wrong. Of course you also ignore the fact that neutral users have disagreed with you on your claims about Russian sources.[51][52] -YMB29 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC) The sources are not blog, but Mark Solonin and Russian publication by Senyavskaya [53], which is a patently absurd by itself [54]. However, a typical content discussion with YMB29 looks like that. I do not think we need it here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC) This is how discussion goes with you; you keep denying the obvious. The source is a blog by Solonin (amateur historian, no academic degree), which is a copy and paste from his personal website.[55] You should check out the wiki policies and guidelines regarding such sources. So you promote the blog/personal website entry over two reliable sources, which is ridiculous. And why do you keep bringing up the Winter War article? -YMB29 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC) I'm glad to see than an RfC was tried on a few sources about the rape question, in March 2014. It is unclear to what extent the RfC settled the disputes about Battle of Berlin. We have an article on Mark Solonin, but from the article it is hard to know whether he is perceived as a recognized expert. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC) He is a somewhat popular writer and publicist, but is not an academic source. Meanwhile, there should be no questions about Senyavskaya's academic credentials, given the references to her works in Western publications and what sources directly say about her.[56] So the revert by user "My very best wishes",[57] as well as earlier revers by Sayerslle,[58][59][60] were unjust. -YMB29 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC) OK. My reading of this RfC closing [61]: there is no consensus to include claims noted in points 1 to 3 by Dianaa. Is that correct reading? My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC) The RfC's closing comment, as well as its original wording, was ambiguous. The wording was biased and did not reflect the dispute accurately. I tried to get it changed, but no one listened. Yet there was still enough support for making changes.[62] Eventually, the sources were included, and there was a sort of a compromise. Also, it applied for the article about Berlin, not this article. I don't think anyone would argue that the Russian view on mass rape in Germany should be completely excluded from an article about the topic. -YMB29 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC) @EdJohnston: I also have a question about this edit warring report.[63] Why is it taking so long for Sayerslle to be blocked/warned? He is edit warring not only in Rape during the occupation of Germany (even continuing to revert after the report was opened[64]), but on another page too (also after the report was opened), as noted by an admin.[65] He had received lengthy bans for edit warring in EE related articles not too long ago. Plus he constantly insults others. What is worrying is that his disruption is spreading to other articles.[66][67] -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) YMB29, a piece of advice. You might really want to tone down the constant block-shopping and admin-begging since you're not here with exactly clean hands. As it has been pointed out previously, you've been engaged in a slow motion edit war against multiple users, you display a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, and you're also casting some baseless WP:ASPERSIONS against other users. Just as an example of the last one, you claim that "his disruption is spreading to other articles". Nonsense. What you got there is a diff for the fact that Sayerslle made a ... comment on a talk page. If that's "disruption" then you have a very wacked idea of what "disruption" is. It appears to be "oh no, someone disagrees with me! How dare they!". Which sort of shows that it is *you* who are (at least a big part of) the problem, not the other user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Did you read what he wrote on that talk page? I am not block-shopping/admin-begging, but simply pointing out that the disruption is spreading, and not only to articles that I edit. Also, why are you here? I have not talked about you here and did not even interact with you much on wiki at all? It looks like the old EEML tactic of supporting like-minded users and following other users to different talk pages to harass them is still alive. -YMB29 (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC) To prove my point, you also attacked the admin who "dared" to report Sayerslle's misconduct.[68] -YMB29 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC) There is no such list. Period. I have no email communications with any Wikipedia participants for many years. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC) I am not saying there is necessarily a mailing list now, but the behavior of many of its former members remains almost the same (stalking and harassment of users who are deemed "pro-Russian"). -YMB29 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Obviously, people who edit in the same subject area know each other, see each other edits, and help or correct each other. This is nothing special. I am not quite sure what does it mean "pro-Russian". For example, I believe that ideological positions by the Stalinist and Putinist historians you quoted are in fact "anti-Russian", because they whitewash crimes against Russians, just as they whitewash crimes against other nations. For the same reason Holocaust deniers are not "pro-German". My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Well you are continuing to throw baseless accusations against historians, simply because you don't like what they say, and making ridiculous comparisons to Holocaust denial. And I am sure that Volunteer Marek was only here to "correct" you... -YMB29 (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Can you be explicit about what it is you're trying to insinuate? If I'm going to be accused of something, I'd like to know what that something is. If you don't wish to accuse me of anything, then don't. The fact that you're resorting to vague (and of course unsubstantiated) insinuations sort of suggests you're full of it. See WP:ASPERSIONS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Full of what? Are you continuing with personal attacks again? I am simply saying that there was no reason for you to come here to accuse me. The fact that you did leads me to think that there is still something going on between former EEML members. -YMB29 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC) @EdJohnston: I summarized the current issues here. I am not sure if that is exactly what you asked for though. -YMB29 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) The reverting under dubious pretexts is continuing.[69][70] The second revert is by a user who contributed nothing to the article except reverts.[71] -YMB29 (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC) The user also followed me to another article to revert text,[72] so the disruption is spreading. -YMB29 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC) You're being reverted BECAUSE CONSENSUS IS AGAINST YOU! Sorry for the all caps but it's just not getting through. There is NO ONE, not a single person who's agreeing with you. YOU are the one who's edit warring against multiple users. YOU are the one who is ignoring the outcome of a previous RfC [73]. YOU are the one who's ignoring previous discussions on the matter [74] [75]. YOU are the one who's been previously warned about this matter ("YMB29, with all due respect, you have been warned before on this issue" [76]. You are the one who is being disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC) The user in question clearly needs an WP:ARBEE topic ban. This has gone on long enough. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC) You followed me to a page you never edited before to revert me based on your interpretation of an RfC result, without looking at the old discussion. How is that not disruptive? -YMB29 (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Also, I will say this again, you were a member of the EEML and so were most of the users who currently form a "consensus" against me in Rape during the occupation of Germany. You are just continuing your disruption together, and not only in that article. See this section[77] that still applies to the current dispute. -YMB29 (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Bull. Users: Iryna Harpy, Sayerselle, Diannaa, PBS, Kierzek, Serialjoepsycho, Paavo273, Buckshot06, among others have nothing to do with EEML. These are ALL users who have disagreed with you, all users who told you to stop your tendentious editing, and all who've come to the conclusion that you're engaged in POV pushing. Stop making nonsense excuses. You are edit warring, being disruptive, not listening and wasting a lot of people's time. A topic ban is long long overdue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Bull? You again continue with personal attacks... I can also research your history and list users you had disagreed with. Are you claiming that Iryna Harpy or Sayerselle (banned for edit warring) have nothing to do with you? One can simply look at your editing history to understand that you push the same POV in different articles. Where have all of them accused me of TE editing and POV pushing? My disputes were resolved with most of the other users, so bringing them up here is misleading. -YMB29 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC) This does not change the fact that you and Iryna Harpy continuously made disruptive edits to the article to remove text under false pretexts, made personal attacks and accusations, and stalked me to other talk pages, including this one (before I brought up your reverts). -YMB29 (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC) YMB29, if this many people are taking issue with your edits, you should take a hint. Otherwise, a topic ban is surely forthcoming. There is no cabal. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Well you know these people from the Ukrainian conflict articles. They are users with similar POV; they make similar edits and support each other on talk pages (see the Bellingcat RSN discussion or the 3RR report I filed). They all converged on me and defended Sayerslle, even though it was clear he was being disruptive. Also, if you want you can add your opinions on the issues discussed in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) To further prove my point, look at this personal attack by Iryna Harpy.[78] There was no reason for her to come to an article she never edited before and make such an attack. -YMB29 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC) A new summary of the disputes is here.[79] -YMB29 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) There is no cabal. After looking at this discussion (above), as well as other discussions and long-term edit warring by YMB29 against at least 7 other editors, it should be abundantly clear that his behavior is problematic, and something should be done about it. However, I leave this at discretion by WP administrators. At the very least, this is not my responsibility any longer. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Well how do you explain you and others following me to different pages, including those you never edited before? -YMB29 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Can you comment on this[80]? I tried to get you and another admin to look at the issues on those pages before going to ANI, but did not get much feedback. You were probably busy, I understand. I don't think others are looking at my evidence in detail (at least so far). Maybe this should have been posted somewhere else, especially since I have evidence on other users. -YMB29 (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

13 February 2015

Assuming you've calmed down a bit by now, are you ready to formally revoke your edit waring accusation so that the writing of articles, the purpose of the project, that you chose to rudely interrupt, may finally continue? 84.106.11.117 (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello, there's an issue in Israeli cuisine article with this edit. This edit has no consensus, i started a discussion but i suspect it won't make the editor to try and reach consensus before reverting, as the editor continued to revert on his own accord. Can you check this and ensure wp:con? Infantom (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. The discussion isn't too visible because it's way up the page. The article is under the ARBPIA 1RR rule so be careful. There was a big fight about hummus some time ago. See WP:LAME#Hummus and friends. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduction of hate vandalism?

Hello Ed (I assume it's your name),

I wanted to introduce a new type of vandalism that should be noted by administrators, because it isn't specified on WP:Vandalism. I would call it hate speech vandalism. It mainly consists of addition of negative content onto articles. This mainly targets users who edit on pages based on stuff they aren't fans of it. For example, using Fifty Shades of Grey as examples, one edit consisted of a user changing the film's genre from Romantic to Porn. Another one changing the title to Fifty Shades of Gay.

Examples

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]
5. [85]
6. [86]
7. [87]
8. [88]
9. [89] (on the left)

And so on; you get the idea. I wanted to discuss this with you about the idea before reaching other administrators. Though it could fall under Silly vandalism, I believe it should be categorized on its own, because it has its own definition. Thank you for cooperating, Callmemirela (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the accounts responsible have all been blocked, some of them by a checkuser. Also, Fifty Shades of Grey (film) has been semiprotected for a week. The situation seems under control, for now. I'm not persuaded that this is a breakthrough into a new type of vandalism. People are constantly trying to damage our articles in all kinds of creative ways. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Mehmeett21's massive sock puppetry

• Mehmeett21 (talk · contribs)
• Madyas (talk · contribs)
• And a bunch of dynamic IP addresses (most recent 31.200.xxx.xxx)

Someone report this user on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. He should be banned from this topic (any Turkic, Euroasian, and related historical articles). --188.158.116.74 (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sock puppet. But you are definitely vandal and maybe Toghuchar's sock puppet. Madyas (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There is further discussion about User:Madyas at Bishonen's talk by people who know more about this than I do. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

From User:Zoomjet3

Dear Ed,

I hope that this is a reasonable forum and manner in which to contact you. I am not aware of a preferable way to do so.

While I have used Wikipedia for a long time, I have only begun doing Edits very recently. I am therefore very unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules and protocols. In fact, I only discovered that these existed about 2 days ago. Prior to that, I apparently broke revert and edit warring rules because I did not know about those rules. For that I was blocked from editing for 24 hours (by you as far as I know). And that block is now over.

If I did break the rules (even unknowingly), then the penalty did not seem unreasonable. So I did not contest the block.

But... I VERY MUCH WISH TO CONTEST the decision to remove my Edit/Additions to the Bob Simon Page. Please note that I made no changes at all to what had already been written.... Only some additions.

My Edits were absolutely accurate and important for a full understanding of the career of Bob Simon.

I firmly believe that the repeated removal of what I wrote was a suppression of the truth... Censorship. Done for tendentious reasons.

I would like to ask you for your assistance and guidance so that I can put forward my argument for the complete restoration of what I wrote.

Parenthetically, I want to introduce one related question and one related comment.

My question... By what right were other User/Editors allowed to REPEATEDLY remove the truthful and accurate paragraphs that I wrote ?

My comment... One individual, User: Light show accused me of "vandalism" of the Bob Simon Page. So I looked up the Wikipedia definition of vandalism...

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism."

My Edit/Additions were in no way consistent with such transgressions...not in any way. I added important and accurate information which ENHANCED the integrity of Wikipedia by making sure that the Bob Simon page was more comprehensively reflective of the truth.

Thus, I think that User: Light show should be instructed to not make false accusations as a result of not liking an unwelcome truth (unwelcome to him or her) which was written by someone else.

I look forward to your response, especially regarding how I can go about restoring my accurate Edits on Bob Simon.

Thank you, Zoomjet3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomjet3 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Zoomjet3. Your changes at Bob Simon were not vandalism, but they were edit warring. The report that led to your block was here. Not everything that can be sourced belongs in Wikipedia. Changes to articles are subject to the WP:Undue weight rules and need to have sufficient importance for inclusion. The way to determine if material is suitable is to get consensus from other editors. If seems you have a personal WP:Point of view on this topic and you strongly believe that Bob Simon's reports were biased against the state of Israel. The fact that you consider him biased doesn't guarantee that others will agree, or that they will find it to be a significant part of Bob Simon's career that needs coverage in his article. By forcing your material in through repeated reverts, you prevented a proper consensus from being formed. See WP:POL for a brief overview of Wikipedia policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

From User:Zoomjet3

Dear Ed,

Thank you for your response.

In it you said... " If seems you have a personal point of view on this topic and you strongly believe that Bob Simon's reports were biased against the state of Israel. The fact that you consider him biased doesn't guarantee that others will agree, or that they will find it to be a significant part of Bob Simon's career that needs coverage in his article."

My point of view on this is shared by many people and many organizations.... They strongly agree with me. And they strongly agree that this is a significant part of Bob Simon's career.

I believe that they would strongly agree that this information should be included in the Bob Simon Article on Wikipedia.

So I want to ask you this question...

If I obtain messages from well known organizations stating that they, as organiztions, agree that...

●Bob Simon's reporting on Israel was significantly biased against the State of Israel for many years ●That this was a significant part of Bob Simon's career ●That this information should be included on the Bob Simon Article

And if I submit these messages to Wikipedia (with the express permission of those organizations)...

Will that lead to the inclusion of this material in the Bob Simon Article ?

I look forward to your response.

Thank you, Zoomjet3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomjet3 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please reply again if you can confirm that you have read WP:POL. And if you want to persuade people, you should keep your requests under 200 words. Part of your question you wouldn't be asking if you'd actually read the WP:POL document. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Serb1914

Hey - you warned Serb1914 (talk · contribs) about a week about for breaching their topic band. Another editor posted on ANI that they've continued to do so, along with some other complaints. I left a few comments to that second editor, but so far nobody has replied on ANI. Serb1914 has edited several times on the 14th, 15th and today. While they seem like small edits, would you mind reviewing them to see if they are violating their topic ban? Sorry to bother you, just following up after trying to help out (and calm down) a new editor (The Destroyer Of Nyr). Appreciate any help. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - appreciate it. I'm going to leave some advice to Nyr about better handling disputes and remaining cool given they are a new editor in a contentious area and showing some signs of behavior that will cause them problems. Hope it will help them avoid future issues.Ravensfire (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Benfica

Hello Ed, some guy keeps on reverting my editing of SL BENFICA page, how can we solve this matter? Pt78 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the complaint about your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive269#User:Pt78 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned). Do you understand the issues there? Can you say how you can avoid the problem going forward? (Hint: it involves using the page at Talk:S.L. Benfica to reach agreement with others). EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Pt78's edit request. SLBedit (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was that necessary? He may be confused, but should be allowed to make edit requests. If you think it's a bad idea, you can comment on his request. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Best way to handle death threats from a Wikipedia editor

You wrote that you think my plan to attempt to deter the Wikipedia editor who is making death threats against me is an example of WP:BATTLE. I have never had death threats made against me before, so perhaps you can explain to me how to handle it. I thought that by continuing to revert extreme anti-Arab non-NPOV edits in the same careful, selective manner I have been doing, and always observing the one revert rule, would demonstrate the death threats have had no effect. What do you suggest I do? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

FYSA, Andiar.rhonds came back 40 minutes after you blocked him to resume edit warring over "Muslim". He probably didn't realize the IP he used matches the same one used 10 days earlier to correct one of his own talk page comments here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bjelleklang has now semiprotected Charlie Hebdo shooting. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger that, thanks. Can I ask you a completely unrelated question? I noticed awhile back that when people would mention my name on a page somewhere, I'd get a notification at the top saying they'd mentioned me. Then it just seemed to stop doing that a few weeks ago. Is there some setting I'm missing? When I go into the notification tab in preferences menu, it says "Mention" and Web is checked, yet notifications don't seem to be appearing. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

People have been discussing that at WP:VPT#Echo is not working. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I'll check that out. Thanks... AzureCitizen (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Madyas a sock?

There is an ongoing discussion concerning user:Madyas being a sock of Erim Turukku/EMr_KnG on Bishonen's talk page. If you would be interested. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If you open an SPI regarding User:Madyas I'll try to comment. He is sufficiently disruptive that a complaint of long-term edit warring on the 'Turkic' business might be justified. I don't see him ever waiting for consensus. But it's better if the evidence is gathered in one place. Best not to use ANI for that because you can't count on more than 30 seconds of attention there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR clarification

Re this - could you provide some clarification? The IP is not banned, and was not blocked when Huldra was revering it. I'm relatively new at this so perhaps I do not understand 3RR properly. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check the IP's block notice at Special:Contributions/124.180.167.228 and let me know if you think this is a good-faith user. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no question that 124.180.167.228 deserved a lengthy block. But I am asking you a different question - Huldra edit warred with him before he was blocked- are you saying there's an exemption in 3RR which allows us to revert with impunity, so long as we think or believe the editor we are warring with is not a good faith user? Brad Dyer (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't usually block someone if the person they were warring with turns out to be a sock. If you believe there is a long-term problem with User:Huldra's editing of I/P articles you could file a new report at an appropriate venue.EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Has it been established that 124.180.167.22 is a sock? I must have missed that. Brad Dyer (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The mention of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis in the 3RR suggested to me that this particular IP was likely to be a sock. JarlaxleArtemis has vandalized in the I/P area in the past. I was also influenced by User:Zero0000's comment in the 3RR, since he is an admin who has worked on I/P topics and often comments at WP:AE. If you disagree with my decision regarding User:Huldra you can appeal it an ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to appeal anything, I'm just trying to understand your thought process. So, If I have a content dispute with an IP user who's behaving badly, I can edit war with him, and when someone complains about me, I can just say "oh, he may be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis" - and that gets me a pass? that seems to be what you are saying above. Brad Dyer (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Brad Dyer: As I am sure you are aware, the IP area is rife with socks. I see "new" pro-Israeli editors almost every day, that I am sure are socks. But I do not call them JarlaxleArtemis-socks because of that! JarlaxleArtemis is special, in that he A: makes very nasty, vulgar sexual insults, B: various kind of death threats. If a suspected sock, especially one who address me by my nick ( JarlaxleArtemis and I go back a long time); yes, then I assume it is him (or a copy-cat, in which case he deserves the same treatment as JarlaxleArtemis). In the case of this IP, there were 3 out of 3 sure indications of him. In addition: Ariel (city) have two sister cities: Mobile, Alabama and Heredia, Costa Rica. Suspected JarlaxleArtemis-socks have been very active on Mobile, Alabama with the same edits (the article has now been protected because of it): I was just waiting to see him appearing on Heredia, Costa Rica. (And I see that Bishonen have extended the block: that is 2 uninvolved admins blocking it). And no: I would never say that "oh, editor X may be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis", unless editor X makes JarlaxleArtemis-like edits (that is, death threats, or sexual, vulgar insults.) Huldra (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not unheard of for people to get into edit wars with socks. The end result of that depends on whether the admin who considers the case is sympathetic. Sort of like warring over BLP and then defending yourself at 3RR by appealing to the BLP exemption. Neither of these is optimal behavior but the admin has to make some kind of decision. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

agreed, but that leads us back to the issue of whether not it has been established that the IP here is a sock. It it has not, how can the "reverting socks exemption" apply?Brad Dyer (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Brad Dyer: Here is my view of it. Rules like 3RR that govern relationships between editors are designed for editors who, while they might strongly disagree, are nevertheless editing in good faith. However, there are occasions when the assumption of good faith is contradicted by behavior and an admin is entitled to react accordingly. In my opinion, when someone starts writing stuff like this, they have forfeited the right to assumption of good faith and it is within the discretionary powers of an admin to not afford them the protection of rules like 3RR. So I don't think it is necessary to definitively resolve the factual question of whether this IP was a sock. Where the boundary lies isn't clear; we have to make a reasonable judgement that won't necessarily please everyone. However, for the record, the edit I highlighted is very similar to an obscene threatening email that Huldra received from a different permanently blocked account. I got one too; it read "You will soon die a horrible death, Eurotrash faggot. I will make sure of it." Cheers. Zero^talk 03:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Dawoodi Bohra

Would you like to act on DB case being discussed at edit war notice board. 106.215.178.67 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Another admin has handled these complaints. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

British Nigerian - Semi-Protection

Hi Ed, Can you advise why you have added a Semi Protection template to British Nigerian, according to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#British Nigerian the request has been declined, thanks Tmol42 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My semiprotection was to address the possible IP socking, as explained in the AN3 report which I just closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Looks like your efforts and actions have calmed this editor down pro tem at least, much appreciated. Tmol42 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ed,

Could you please advise me on my next course of action?

My main endeavor since the beginning to have accurate data on British Nigerian academic attainment. Despite the fact it was user MiddayExpress who first changed the British Nigerian page without seeking any consensus at all https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Nigerian&oldid=640865401

My efforts were aimed reverting the change on the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Nigerian&oldid=644882849 and asking the user to seek consensus beforehand. For this I was censured with a warning and user MiddayExpress's changes are still on the current page.

I have played by the rules and not immediately tried to change the page again, since your warning. But since user MiddayExpress has suddenly gone quiet despite the provision of more supporting information on the talk page, I am not sure what the next step should be?

Should I change the page? since I feel I have provided more than enough information to support the sources of data. Also at the same time, I have compromised on acknowledging that older data should not be used.

Finally what I find most peculiar is that the link which MiddayExpress objected to the most citing WP:QS and WP:REDFLAG is used without issue in the Education section of Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom?

Also please note that the Economist itself is well known global economics publication dating back to 1843 with a current circulation of 1,574,803 (print); 100,000 (paid digital subscribers, so in no way can this source not be described as reputable.

Finally I appreciate I was warned about my communication with user Bbb23 with regards to the 3RR, so I feel I am talking a big risk in contacting a wikipedia administrator as I don't wish for this message to undermine my efforts to revert changes that were made by MiddayExpress without gaining consensus.

My desire to change the British Nigerian page is coming from a pure place which is why I have contacted you and I have deliberately focused on the articles and document despite consistent provocation from MiddayExpress while tackling this matter on the talk page.

At the same time I am uncertain whether I can even remove the 3RR warning on my userpage? so I have also left that in place

Thanks

Nograviti (talk)

References

• See WP:DR for some steps you can consider when trying to resolve a content dispute. Simply reverting again will not address the problem. One option is the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Another is to open a WP:Request for comment. If you want your talk page comments to be persuasive they should be shorter. Also there's something about your signature that is unusual; it includes no date or time. This will confuse the archive bot. Please consider going to Special:Preferences and clear the checkbox in the Signature section. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I am not sure why my signature doesn't have a timestamp, nothing deliberate on my part. Since I have tried to gain consensus with the user I will open a a WP:Request for comment Thanks Nograviti (talk)

Are you trying to sign with three tildes instead of four? That would cause the date and time to be omitted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance Ed, but my signature formatting looks the same as yours (excluding the username of course) when I compare them when I select edit, am I missing something here? The only thing difference I can see is that you have #top in the User talk section of your signature Nograviti (talk) Thanks again

Your signature is still missing the date and time. Are you sure you are signing with four tildes, like this?: ~~~~. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ed, I have stuck with my logged in account as agreed and I am discussing all issues amicably on the various talk pages of the wikipedia. Actually if you are interested, we would like your input to the discussion on the British Nigerian talk page.Nograviti (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ed, me again, I would like to speak to you about MiddayExpress he has made yet another change to the education section of the British Nigerian page, without even seeking consensus. Also I have noticed a pattern to his edits, in that he makes one major revision and another largely pointless minor revision to make it difficult to merely undo his change. Could you advise on the next best course of action as I thought we were getting somewhere, only see him revert to his old pattern of behavior solo edits once he assumed my attention had waned.Nograviti (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ed. An editor has now moved this page to Nigerians in the United Kingdom and has created a new article at British Nigerian in its place. I presume the semi-protection needn't apply to the new article (actually, I don't think it's required for either article any more as the dispute has calmed down)? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cordless Larry. If you don't agree with the article move you can open a discussion on the talk page. The semiprotection is now on Nigerians in the United Kingdom and is set to expire on 3 March. I would wait and see how it goes before lifting it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've got no complaint about the move, I just didn't think the protection need apply to the new article at British Nigerian, since that's now about a different topic. Thanks for your help. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you believe it is not needed, I have lifted the semiprotection on British Nigerian. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Would you please consider rewording your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:BarkingFish request for unblock? It reads as if you're questioning whether BarkingFish has the basic competence required to edit Wikipedia (WP:CIR mostly describes people with a history of being unable to edit productively), which seems pretty insulting. wctaiwan (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. wctaiwan (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeensian

Hi. Thanks for your message. While I understand your concern, I edited in the utmost good-faith to bring balance to an article that is very clearly not balanced. I am loath to use the term because of its associations, but it is pretty obvious that there is white-knighting going on, combined with massive group-think that is causing the article on Anita Sarkeensian to fail in the most basic standards of impartiality. My desire was to draw attention to this before the 'we can do no wrong as long as we stick together' attitude leaves the Anita article and explodes all over Wikipedia. Given the response to my appeals and attempts to form consensus so far, I have no faith that an appeal would be fairly or promptly heard. All I can see coming from the particular process you outlined would be that things are kicked into the long-grass, never to return.Theduinoelegy (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack against me

Hi. Plot Spoiler, in his revert on my edit, said "you dolt". Is this acceptable? I don't like it and it's not WP:CIVIL, especially when I have not said a word to him here. He was blocked just some months ago for 1RR violation in this topic area, so I would expect him to be even more cautious when editing in this area. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Donets Basin page move

Ed, I believe that the move of Donets Basin to the Russian term Donbass was done without enough significant input from the community. Because of its relevance to current events, this move has broader ramifications than a standard Wikipedia article, and should have been examined much more expertly. I don't understand why this regrettable input was allowed to stand in the record; and I don't believe that a 3-2 vote after eleven days discussion should be accepted as due diligence for the encyclopedia in a matter of such weight. Assuming you will not reverse the closure, I will be requesting a WP:Move review. I'm letting you know this in accordance with the recommended procedures for review. Thanks, SteveStrummer (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your oppose vote was the only oppose that seemed valid in terms of policy. The vote by User:RossiyaCitizen22 which you linked to played no role in my decision. WP:COMMONNAME trumps the view that, by picking Donbass as the name, we are choosing between Russian and Ukrainian views of the situation. If you will be asking for review, that must mean think there is a fault in the procedure I followed while closing. Can I ask what that is? WP:RM *is* the method we use to get input from the community. Your mention of 'ramifications' suggests that you see political significance in this closure. In my view, politics plays no role. We just need to determine what name is most commonly used in English, and be sure there is no uncertainty in what 'Donbass' refers to. It is ironic that the former article was titled 'Donetsk basin' but then used the word Donbass consistently in the article text when referring to the subject. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. At only eleven days, I believe this RM should have been relisted rather than closed in order to solicit a wider rang of opinions: the tiny number of participants renders the conversation incomplete at best. And while I'm relieved to hear that RossiyaCitizen22's remarks played no role in your decision, I think they should have been stricken entirely, and an admonishment sent to the author. As for the taint of politics, this was inevitable given the context of the change: the nominator is asking that we drop a longstanding and recognizable name in favor of a foreign word, based on so-called "common usage". Academic sources have until very recently used the term Donets(k) Basin almost exclusively: to overturn that tradition based on Google hits is indeed "recentism" in its most obvious form. (The IP user who mistakenly brought up to the recentism "policy" should be excused for the error; his point is still valid.) It is no surprise that there are more occurrences of the Russian variant in use on the web and elsewhere now, given that country's relative size and population advantage, but that does not excuse Wikipedia from providing a neutral POV. There is no "official" name to this multinational geographical area, and deciding that it will be called by its Russian name on English WP is indeed giving preference to one national claim over another. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Russian is a Ukrainian language, just as much as it is a language of Russia. Use of a name in Russian implies no such claim, just as use of Kiev does not imply a Russian claim on that city. Go to Kiev. You'll hear them speaking Russian. Ask them if they think that makes them any less Ukrainian. They'll laugh in your face. There is nothing foreign about "Donbass", which has a long history in English-language academic usage. I provided books. What's more, Google Ngrams (which surveys usage in books) challenges the assertion that "Donets Basin" has ever been dominant. It has never been more common than Donbass/Donbas: not in 1940, not in 1980, and not in the year 2000. I have sources to back me up, whereas you've not got any. Regardless, move reviews are not about rearguing the move. They are about procedure. What were the closer's procedural failings? RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I stated them: not enough time, not enough discussion, and an offensive invalid entry. RGloucester's reasoning is flawed – NGRAMS is an infamously malleable method of research – and being breathlessly quick with his replies does not make it any stronger. He did not supply any useful books, only works on other topics: "Russian labor in revolution and reaction: the Donbass working class, 1870-1905" and "Workers of the Donbass Speak: Survival and Identity in the New Ukraine" . I supplied books: the Encyclopedia Brittanica; the Columbia Encyclopedia; and the Encyclopedia of World Geography (2005). Which ones are more authoritative? SteveStrummer (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how "Workers of the Donbass Speak" is "not useful". It is perhaps the one of the most comprehensive surveys of cultural identity in the Donbass to be published in recent memory. As I said, the geographical area and the cultural and historical region do not align. You are confusing them. That's why both the Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias have two articles, one on the cultural region and one on the geographical basin. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet and harassment

Contributions/Charles-Edouard de la Pannerie de la Villardière de Mardricourt is a sockpuppet of fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Levetop, and is banned on fr.wikipedia.org.

But I don't have to say what is to be done on en.wikipedia.org, only that I would prefer not to be harassed, on wp-EN, about things happening on French Wikipedia .

His actions have no real other consequences than to “fill” my user talk page: I disabled email notifications about changes on any page. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Donets Basin

An editor has asked for a Move review of Donets Basin. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Last time I deal with you

You know what I quit I'm not going to be subjected to this patronising. Ban me and let it be over I'm logging out now and not back in again so there's no point in trying to lecture me any more.

Ichessekleinedeutschenkinde (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

David Wetzel (historian)

No problem with the semi-protection. I did some cleanup and added a few refs but I'm happy to leave it out of my hands at this point. For the record, I'll state that I'm not David Wetzel, if that helps sorting out what I agree has been a confusing editing situation. For that matter, I'm not convinced anyone editing at that article is him. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Dolma

• Dolma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hallo Ed, I just saw your decision in the edit warring noticeboard concerning User:Esc2003. I have a question for you: would it be possible to consider subject to the WP:ARBAA2 arbitration case also the article about Dolma? I am patrolling this article, which is a battleground between Turkish and Armenian editors too (yesterday one of the two editors tried to open a new front there) and I think that its inclusion in ARBAA2 would be a very good deterrent against these edit warriors. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you believe you see warring along ethnic lines at Dolma you could let me know or report it at WP:AE. Since Dolma is a Turkish word it seems that there is more of an argument to include the Turkish connection in that article. EdJohnston (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The Turkish origin of the word Dolma is exactly what several Armenian editors are fighting (see yesterday`s edit). Already in 2014 there was the same problem with another editor from Armenia: we asked for reliable sources, but he could not bring them. OK, if there will be another burst I`ll let you know, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC 2015

You are invited to join us at Barnard College for Wikipedia Day NYC 2015, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference for the project's 14th birthday. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. Sunday March 22 Wikipedia Day NYC 2015 (RSVP on-wiki or at bit.ly/wikidaybarnard). 10:00pm - 9:00 pm at Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, by W 118th St We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Luhansk People's Republic move

You missed the talk page of Luhansk People's Republic. RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I did a history merge on the talk pages and moved the talk archive. Let me know if I missed anything. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dawoodi Bohra Ban repeal

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

Hello - I have repeatedly asked you to reconsider the ban you imposed over a month ago for Dawood Bohras and all related topics including talk pages. As you can see I have faithfully adhered to your ban and I think its fair to ask that you repeal it - if only for the talk pages. I might also point out that the word 'acknowledged', used for the Mufaddal Saifuddin page to describe the fact that he is 'acknowledged' as the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community regardless of the court proceedings is further shown by this article in the Los Angeles Daily News Islamic Leader Inaugurates Mosque - March 2015. This word alone was used to ban me as saying I have described a winner but there was no such intention and it has verifiable support such as this official acknowledgment from the Prime Minister of India on his own website Syedna calls on India PM Noughtnotout (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not try to do some normal editing on other articles, not connected with the Dawoodi Bohra. Some evidence that you understand our WP:Reliable source policy would be welcome. You've made less than 20 edits since the topic ban was imposed in January, and nothing that is unrelated to the Dawoodi Bohra succession. The best way to make articles neutral is to accurately follow the weight of sources, wherever they may lead. A person such as yourself who seems to be an enthusiast for one side of the dispute may tend to cherry-pick evidence that favors his own side. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Actually Ed I have made no edits since the topic ban was imposed - at least not that I can remember. Only posted on editor's talk pages. The fact is I can edit things that I know about, this is something I know a lot about. And like any other editor it has to be of importance to me as well or something I am passionate about.

My edits have been aimed at neutrality, I may not always achieve it but anyone can see that I put a balancing view - I'm not out to remove an opposing POV - as maybe be the agenda of a number of other editors. In many of my edits I have consciously retained opposing views and carefully avoided diluting them or lowering their exposure in the article. The other thing is that you ask me to understand the reliable source policy but it it raises the question of other sources posted in these articles - especially those linked to the forum 'dawoodi-bohras' [90] which is a self confessed challenger to the community's authority. You will struggle to find a single word in support of the community as it stands. Having their viewpoint there may be fine but surely not as reliable sources for the neutral? My sources on the other hand - as given above for example - have been totally non-biased. I'll look at other articles and try edits there - but in the meantime I again request the ban be removed at least for talkpages on Dawoodi Bohra. I am happy to abide by rules that I am made aware of.Noughtnotout (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that the problem has gone away, so I won't undo the ban at this time. If you want others to review your ban you have the options listed at WP:AC/DS#Appeals. But if you are hoping I will change my mind you can try to do real work elsewhere, as stated above. Your comment above doesn't give me the impression that you understand neutrality. Neutrality is *not* equal time for all factions; it is unpartisan echoing of the totality of the reliable sources, within the limits of space. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about neutrality. If the equivalent measure were used for, let's say, Roman Catholicism, then to write on those pages it would seem that I should not be Roman Catholic or partial to Catholicism. Unless I don't have a belief in what I am saying I cannot be neutral? And I am struggling to pinpoint where did my edits in the pages did not echo the reliable sources, something I have asked if you can elaborate for me. I used reliable sources as mentioned earlier. Those reliable sources were continuously removed by others who were not seen to be partisan whilst I left other sources untouched and am still seen to be partisan. Shouldn't the topic of Dawoodi Bohra reflect the commonly held view of the community, not those of its detractors and certainly not JUST those of the detractors? Again using the parallel drawn with Roman Catholicism, isn't it appropriate that by and large that topic will be written by Catholics and not so much from others, such as the Jewish or Anglican communities? Is it not about the belief of Catholics as Catholics see it or is it as other religious groups see it? The topic of Dawoodi Bohra has to be written primarily by the Dawoodi Bohra, those who have differences with the sect can quite happily have their own pages - Progressive Dawoodi Bohra for example. And those who dispute the legitimacy of the groups practises can post their own page where those views can be discussed. Noughtnotout (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

See my previous message where I explained how you can appeal. Your ideas for reaching neutrality, while they might seem like common sense to you, are not how it is understood on Wikipedia. We go by what the reliable sources write. Your theory that the article should basically be written by the Dawoodi Bohra is nothing like our policy. See Wikipedia:List of policies#Content. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Donbass move

Thanks for the clarification on the move close. As I said, I thought I could see the logic of your close, and it made sense to me, it's just nice to see it set down in such cases. All the best!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:2014 Odessa clashes

I created a draft per your request. You can help out. --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that you are an administrator, RGloucester (I'm not pinging, so don't ping him) is reluctant to accept my draft and rejects it as "original research" or something like that. Can you convince him or something? I don't want to re-report him in ANI. Perhaps I can request a mediation? --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have this page watched. There is no consensus to merge the articles and make a total kibosh. You are totally out of process. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester is re-reported at WP:ANI; comment there. --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sageworks Discussion

Please stop commenting on my talk page and direct your comments to the article talk page Talk:Sageworks instead. Thanks. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you please help with Sageworks page protection as it is again subject to edit warring by user CorporateM who declines to work on consensus on the Talk page.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you please also protect Gravitational constant...

... for the same reason that you protected Dimensionless physical constant? I think both articles need it. 73.16.37.124 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already protected through 18 March by a different admin. Let's see if the problem continues after the protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection of Yom Kippur War article

Hello, could you please return the semi-protected status of Yom Kippur War as it was before? in the last 24 hours two new editors have already vandalized it [91], [92]. Infantom (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, semiprotection is imposed. I wonder if you have any ideas to keep the previous revert war from starting up again. The period of full protection seems not to have led to any progress. EdJohnston (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Infantom. I'm thinking of making a request at an admin board about the dispute at Yom Kippur War. A long period of full protection (two months) stopped the dispute only temporarily. See these links for the background:

• Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 3RR complaint from January, closed with full protection of Yom Kippur War

The two parties reported at AN3 were User:Turnopoems and User:Ykantor. Though as an admin I don't rule on content, I am disappointed by the arguments given by both sides. Each party seems to be grasping at any bit of data that would justify defining the war as a victory for their own side. The two options seem to be, a result that looks good for the Israelis (per Ykantor) or result that looks good for the Egyptians (per Turnopoems).

Here are the two participants in the January AN3 case about Yom Kippur War:

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

• Turnopoems seems to think that failure of the other side to respond to him in two days gives a green light for him to put his version into the article. He opened an RfC at Talk:Yom Kippur War#RfC: Do these changes comply with the guidelines pertaining to territorial changes? on 27 December but the RfC was vaguely worded and led to no responses at all.

• Both Turnopoems and Ykantor have been alerted about the ARBPIA sanctions. In addition, Turnopoems has been warned for edit warring at both Afroasiatic languages and at Yom Kippur War. The other party, Ykantor, does work at digging up sources and seems to have a better grasp of WP:V. Turnopoems' comments in the AN3 complaint were confusing and unpersuasive. (For example, using the argument of 'BRD' to justify repeating his own disputed edit, after it was already reverted once. That seems to be about as convincing as 'you didn't answer me immediately, therefore you don't object, therefore I may revert'). Turnopoems has continued to deploy that argument since full protection expired. For example see the edit summary in this revert of March 14.

• We need people who are open to being guided by the best sources towards a verdict on the war's outcome that reflects broad-based scholarly opinion. Ideally we would attract more people to the article who have general Wikipedia experience outside the I/P area. Simply extending the full protection is unlikely to produce any improvement. Should admins now consider stricter sanctions on anyone whose participation seems to be only in the service of their own POV? Under WP:ARBPIA a variety of options are available for admins to use. For example, those who seem to be unable to discuss properly with others on the talk page could be banned from editing the article. At the moment User:Turnopoems is the most obvious candidate for a page ban. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm aware of the disputation and i'm involved in part of it, i've addressed Turnopoems on talk page regarding his last edit.

There are two issues:

• Israel's territorial positions at the end of the war- Ykantor's edition is supported by source (Morris, 2011, Righteous Victims, p. 437), Turnopoems accepted the source but argued its relevancy. He was the only one to think that in contract to three other editors supporting Ykantor's edition (Ykanor, Tzahy [93] and myself).

• Mentioning the peace treaty as a territorial change. I opposed it by saying it is irrlevant to the infobox, since the treaty is a result of a late negotiation process and not the war. I requested for sources and Turnopoems's sources didn't support his claims(feel free to check it yourself), actually quite the opposite in my opinion. In this case also, Turnopoems stood alone against me and Ykantor[94]. Infantom (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

- EdJohnston, yours: "I wonder if you have any ideas to keep the previous revert war from starting up again". It might help if there will be a better definition of "territorial changes". User:Turnopoems can not dispute the accuracy of the my well supported text. (e.g "The Israeli army occupied ... within 100 km from Cairo,") Hence he claims that this factual sentence is not relevant to the term "territorial changes". A clarification of this term might help to convince him, and definitely will convince me, if I am wrong. In my opinion such a definition is not a content dispute, so maybe the help desk is the right place for dealing with this clarification.

- the supported and undisputed factual text :" with the exception of the Israeli crossing point near Deversoir Air Base" was deleted twice, by Ibrahim.ID and by Turnopoems , thus the sentence became factually wrong. It might help if an admin will tell them that one should not knowingly insert a mistake into a Wikipedia article

-yours:"Each party seems to be grasping at any bit of data that would justify defining the war as a victory for their own side".

---- Well, I am an Israeli, but I do not see my job here as trying to "improve" reality toward the Israeli side. Israel has its share of a wrong doing and mishaps and in my opinion it is actually better to expose them, in order to avoid repeating them in the future. However, here my added content is fully supported and not disputed, and Turnopoems does not provide a support for his demand to omit this text.

---- This war is remembered in Israel as a sort of a national trauma, although the war was finished with an Israeli victory. Every year, at the relevant date, the newspaper are full of criticism about what went wrong and why, blaming each of the leaders and generals of this period, and elaborating in the personal stories of widows and orphans of this war. There is no glory in this war at all but I failed to clarify this point Turnopoems. Ykantor (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ykantor. You've hit upon one obvious way to decide if this was a victory or not. Each side must have had public recriminations after the war, as to how they failed to do better in the outcome. These recriminations must have been covered in the press, and perhaps even in scholarly books. Including a summary of these reflections might be valuable for the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

- Googling for the terms: "1973" "war" in the 2 important Israeli newspapers: Haaretz english edition and the "Jerusalem post", may supply a lot of essays, reports and stories about the 1973 war. I can not read all these articles, but I am not aware of journalists of those newspapers who claims that there was no victory or that the victory was "mild" (i.e. was a close to a draw.)

- Googling for these terms in the Arab news reports site "aljazeera.com", I found: "Though Egypt, Syria and Iraq suffered losses at the end of the war, the initial gains proved that the Arabs could win major battlefield engagements. These 'victories' provided the Arabs with psychological momentum, overturning the humiliations stemming from the 1967 defeat, and paving the way for diplomacy."

- the Lebanese .dailystar.com.lb say: "Lahoud and Berri congratulate Syria and Egypt on ’73, 'victory’ ". The quotation marks around "victory" speaks for themself. Also: "Sunday is the 40th anniversary of Egypt's opening strike against Israel in the 1973 Mideast war, a day that is celebrated every year here as a victory over Israel, though the war itself ended in a stalemate." So, in fact there was no Egyptian victory.

- The search of the Egyptian newspaper ahram.org.eg provided a lot of "1973 Egyptian victory" but I did not find an explanation why it was an Egyptian victory.

- These quotes are of course somehow arbitrary, but it seems that for Egypt and Syria they won the 1973 war. Other Arab newspapers does not necessarily think so. To my knowledge, all(?) western commentators and scholars agree that militarily Israel won the war. Ykantor (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

- More about the strange phenomena that (p. 6) "For most Egyptians the war is remembered as an unquestionable victory- militarily as well as politically...The fact that the war ended with Israeli troops stationed in the outskirts of Cairo and in complete encirclement of the Egyptian third army has not dampened the jubilant commemoration of the war in Egypt....(p. 11) Ultimately, the conflict provided a military victory for Israel, but it is remembered as "the earthquake" or "the blunder" Siniver2013p6

-"the Arab has suffered repeated military defeats at the hand of Israel-in 1956, 1967, and 1973" Bickerton2012p128

-"(p. 184)Yom kipur war...its final outcome was, without doubt, a military victory...(p. 185) in October 1973, that despite Israels military victory" Kumaraswamy2013p184

References

A note

Ed, in your reverting to an earlier version (undoubtedly obligatory) I think you were just a tad drastic. You reverted to a page that had errors I corrected, which everyone accepted, and removed the lead I wrote (several hours of close work) which, in the revert war, no one contested. It was immediately accepted by User: RebSmith and User:User:Bkalafut. The controversial stuff edited in and out is elsewhere, not in the lead, which I tried to write uncontroversially. In fact no one took exception to it. It runs:-

Islam and antisemitism relates to Islamic views on Jews and Judaism and the treatment of Jews in Muslim countries.

While, according to Bernard Lewis, apart from the single instance of Ibn Hazm, there is nothing in Islamic religious thought, theology, homiletics, philosophy and classical literature that can compare to the refutations of Judaism, anti-Jewish diatribes and demonization of Jews in Christian writings, Islamic scriptures, like those of both Judaism and Christianity, do contain "negative assessments and even condemnation of prior religions and their adherents".

Notable Jewish communities existed in the Arabian peninsula from ancient times, and, some illustrious converts to Islam, and much knowledge of the Tanakh, came from the Yemeni Jews, who took up Islam as a refuge from Christian persecutions.. Under Islam, both Jews and Christians were classified as People of the Book (‘ahl al-kitāb), and, as such, enjoyed certain rights and were tolerated as dhimmis.The Qur’an itself does contain criticisms of the two earlier monotheisms. In Islam, both the Torah and the Gospels were considered as conserving authentic revelations from God, but a key bone of contention for Muslim theologians was the state of these earlier scriptures, which they thought both Jews and Christians had tampered with to hide prophecies of the advent of Mohammad.Unlike Europe, the Islamic world, at least until the creation of Israel, never regarded the Jews as an alien presence in their land. In the modern period, the imperial expansion of the West brought in its train exposure to European antisemitism, which began to influence a number of Islamic thinkers as they grappled with the challenges of both modernity, great power threats and the establishment of Israel.The precise relationship between Islam’s traditional view and treatment of Jews, which was highly complex in its regional and historic variations, and these adaptations of Christian antisemitic traditions, is difficult to determine. Some scholars think it wrong to confuse early traces of the universal loathing for the ‘other’, which one finds in early Islam, as in other religions and cultures, with modern anti-Semitism, Others argue that hatred of Jews is an innate trait of Islamic history.

For example the old lead had Firestone quoted on p.188. No one had begun what one should do in these cases - i.e., go through each given source and see if it can be verified. In beginning to check, I noted Firestone said what he was quoted as saying on p.88, not on p.188.

Perhaps I should ask editors on the talk page if anyone objects, but it is a formality. Could you perhaps reconsider the fact that this remained untouched throughout the edit-war, and therefore is not contentious? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a thread on the talk page to see if people support this change. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yozer1

After noticing this editor's post on the talk page of the Talk:Defense of Van (1915), I was under the impression Yozer1 was topic banned from all Armenia(n) and Azerbaijan articles? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Left a note. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Vringo

• Vringo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:AN3#User:5.12.179.96 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Semi)

Yo. Regarding Vringo. 1. It is a patent troll, by MANY articles. Probably all except the communiqués from the company. 2. The current description, which you you protected, says: - "is a technology company" . Debatable, and too general. - "in a split 2-1 decision ..." not that interesting. That its shares fell by 70% is more interesting, I'd say. - "is now appealing to the United States Supreme Court". No, it's not, and even the reference (from Vringo) says something else. Read the USSC page to know how the appeals there go. - it's not the "the number of intellectual property suits filed by the firm [that] has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent troll". 3. You'd better look into the history of that page far deeper than you have. There's another user who has been adding advertising in that page for years. (Even in a prior version of the page, before it was deleted, it seems). I've just come in February and tried to fix it. 5.12.179.96 (talk)

LE: read the above in edit mode. It shows nicer. 5.12.179.96 (talk) LLE: an example from the Vringo advertiser (one of his IPs): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vringo&diff=623042755&oldid=621710533 . The 24.130... wasn't me. The entire Vringo page needs to be cleaned (rewritten from scratch would be better). I'm not offering, but do you really want to protect advertising and incorrect info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.179.96 (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Were you planning to get consensus for your changes at any point? It appears that your strategy is just to keep reverting from different IP addresses. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears you want to jump to conclusions and not address anything of what I wrote. To enlighten you: For a long time there were no other editors except the individual that adds the advertising (let's call it Y). From an earlier warning/suggestion from another moderator I wrote on the talk page. Y didn't reply. Then a few days ago a few editors appeared and ... each started doing their thing. I reverted because while NorthBySouthBaranof was the only one who seemed to want to fix, he got most things wrong, and he doesn't pay attention. EvergreenFir ignores references while claiming they don't exist (see his talk page). The Vringo page wasn't protected before, so maybe my IP address didn't change so that I could keep reverting from another page? That idea didn't cross your mind, it seems. 5.12.179.96 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Inorout

Just a heads up: Inorout, whom you recently warned on his Talk page [95] readded his Omerbashich material to Gravitational constant [96] and Dimensionless physical constant [97], as well as a Talk page comment [98] which doesn't indicate any intention to change his behavior. My feeling is he is not going to stop without sanctions. Thanks --Chetvorno^TALK 19:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

--Oralofori (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Hello there, I hope you're doing fine. Kindly take a look at this article that has the tag of copyvio. Changes have been made to it and I need your help with removing that tag. Do let me know what you think of it so far and thanks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Mensah&action=edit&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
Message added 05:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swarm ^X 05:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Swarm, I've read the post you left on your talk for User:Tgeairn. I agree with your opinion there. There is a clear 3RR violation on the other user's talk page, and I'm not sure that the linked page of diffs proves much in any direction. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Swarm ^X 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

belated reply

re this: I don't recall ever finding any of your actions objectionable, and fully admit that you likely have a much better handle the big picture. That said, if there's something you feel would help make things better, you won't get any objections from me. — Ched :  ?  02:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Action?

Re Reinstating the invalidly-lifted block would not be wheel-warring, given [99], what are you waiting for? NE Ent 20:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I prefer a low-drama lifestyle. There are about 1,500 other admins who could take care of it, if they feel that the moment has arrived. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject History Merge

Given your regular activity at WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen, I have added your name to the list of participants at WP:WikiProject History Merge, partly to keep the list from being empty. You are, of course, free to remove your name, if you so wish! Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For responding quickly and effectively to two tedious requests for administrative attention to edit-wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Big mistake

Ed, please do not follow the advise of Magog. Occupied territories are not Israeli, and there is nothing wrong in pointing out that they are occupied. Please do not remove my capabilities to do those kinds of edits.

I know I have done many reverts, but the majority of them are of socks. And I am willing to go under a 1 revert per week restriction if you want but I don't believe even that is needed, but I can accept that if you want. And I promise that I will discuss more at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Hendrick_99

You might want to take a look at User:Hendrick_99's recent edits. While these aren't pages I follow I stumbled onto this on the page you move protected. User is making many rapid page moves/merges/redirects in a short period of time with little discussion. Raises warning flags to me. I suspect someone will end up having quite a bit of work to do sorting it all out. Red Harvest (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be coincidence, but when another editor noticed the Shanghai IP Address of some supporting edits (not logged in/or sockpuppet, take your pick or flip a coin), and I started noting the large volume of undiscussed page moves, all activity stopped on this account. I'm not inclined to consider this coincidence and figure it is appropriate to do mass page move reverts to correct the damage. Any comments? Red Harvest (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Request

I noticed your response to that 3RR thread about the Crimea annexation article. I originally replied, and requested that you might consider watching the page. However, I think that I have a better idea, if you are willing. The page is a lighting rod for these kinds of disputes. I've done my fair share of reverting, no doubt. However, the constant instability and cycle of edit-warring is not productive. Full protection may temporarily solve the problem, but one must remember that we have WP:ARBEE at our disposal. ARBEE allows the imposition of 1RR on articles by uninvolved administrators. I believe that 1RR on this page would be a much better solution to the current problem, which spans beyond one editor, and includes myself. Frankly, all the editors that are working on the article, including myself, need to be constrained. Tensions are often high, and the result is that edit-warring feels easier than resolving a dispute that does not seem resolvable on the talk page. I've seen how well 1RR has worked in ISIL/Syria articles. Please consider imposing page-level 1RR at this page, and then unprotecting it. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is only one editor (reported for 3RR violation) who behave improperly on this page right now. Making this page very difficult to edit for everyone else because of the single troublemaker would not be an optimal solution in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we all reverted too much, myself included. It is too disruptive. The best way to curtail edit-warring is to only allow one revert per person per twenty-four hours. He certainly isn't the only trouble maker. Given the nature of this article, none of us should be making contentious changes and edit-warring over them. We should be discussing first. RGloucester — ☎ 18:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

1RR is an option to consider, though I wouldn't enact it now. A 1RR can limit abuse though it makes it harder for people to do real article work. I'm glad to see a discussion on the talk page of the protected article. When protection expires, it seems to me that bringing reports to WP:AN3 might be enough to keep edit warring in check. If you believe the problem is across multiple articles, it could be worth your time to open one or more RfCs. If admins notice that someone is reverting against the result of an RfC it is much easier to consider blocks or bans. If you have changes to want to make to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation while it is protected, don't forget WP:Request edit. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, with all due respect, I believe that admins must be more proactive by topic banning the most obvious troublemakers, one at a time. For example, there is someone who just made a blatant 3RR violation [100], responded with contempt [101], tried to justify his edit warring [102], claimed again the cabal [103], just as in the previous WP:AE report and later [104], and blamed others of lies [105]. What else is possibly needed for action? My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The protection of this article gives a window of opportunity for User:Haberstr to show how he can work more neutrally in this topic area. If he can't do so, the window may close. But in the meantime, if the other people who were arguing with him about Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation do nothing useful on the talk page, they too will have missed an opportunity. If one side is truly behaving much better than the other, let's see the evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if anyone wants to submit an WP:AE request, that's fine. However, this will not be me. I have had enough. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ed, you have not notified me that you are having an discussion about me that could have extremely serious consequences for me with two of the most severe POV editors. I note that this is partly the fault of Gloucester, who carefully designed his request to exclude my name. In any case, please notify me of such discussions speedily.

If i were informed, I could have immediately directed you to the Annexation talk page, where I have politely and in good faith made two new requests for revisions and been met by RGloucester with what appears to be bad faith and a uniform inability to concede even the slightest change to the current clumsy POV lead [106] and the current Crimean public opinion section [107]. The clumsy lead also does not conform to Wikipedia policy on leads, which states that we should put the article title in bold in the first sentence, when this can be done smoothly. For no explained reason he opposes that. In fact, he concedes exactly zero. For example, he doesn't even concede that, in context, "Since ..." is preferred to "From the time of..." An even more innocuous suggested revision to the Crimean public opinion sub-section (you can understand what I mean by innocuous by looking at the two versions) is also met with uniform disdain by RGloucester and the other usual suspects, and no rational explanation for opposition to the proposed revision. Most important, note the virulent negativity of the response to my suggestions and note my calm and polite Wikipedian response. Here is Gloucester on the lead: Your proposed lead is no good. It is clumsy, it isn't fluent, and it does not make sense. (He doesn't explain what doesn't make sense, nor what is clumsy, non-fluent, or no good.) ... The annexation was a series of events, not one event. It was merely finished on the 18th of March 2014. (I inform Gloucester that both versions of the lead state that the annexation took place on March 18, 2014, so that his/her criticism is either bad faith or nonsensical.) your proposed version tries to hide the fact that Crimea is and was a part of Ukraine. (I point out in response that my version states in the first sentence: "although the territory under international law continues to be an autonomous republic of Ukraine"). Here is Gloucester on the Crimean public opinion suggested revision: Same old PoV pushing by Haberstr. Polls require context. Taking statistics out of context is a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty and PoV pushing. That's what you propose to do. (I ask Gloucester to withdraw his accusation of intellectual dishonesty but he does not. I also point out that all RS reporting (I cite 5 reports from the 2012 election campaign) puts the results first and adds the context afterward. It's a major disservice to Wikipedia readers not to do it that way. Gloucester makes no response to this argument.) ... Your "proposed" section is an attempt at PoV pushing. (I respond by stating the obvious, that my revision merely rearranges material and doesn't push any POV other than the one that readers coming to the section should be provided what they want to know as quickly as possible within reason. Please also note the scare quotes on "proposed." Gloucester is apparently suggesting that my proposed revision is being made in bad faith.

Other editors are rude, jump to accusations, and assume bad faith during the two latest discussions. For example, here is Kudzu1's succinct response to my proposed revision of 'Crimean public opinion': POV-pushing is seemingly all this tendentious editor does, and this "proposal" is no different. I see no reason to discuss it any further. (Note that Kudzu offers no example of POV pushing, and no argument for why my rearrangement of the information becomes POV-pushing. Also note the repetition of the theme started by Gloucester: scare quotes on "proposal," which indicates he believes my suggested revisions are being made in bad faith. Here is Volunteer Marek's response to, let's be real here, the innocuous suggested change to the 'Crimean public opinion' sub-section: Please stop engaging in POINTY behavior. Please stop trying to GAME the rules. Please stop wasting our time. Enough is enough. (These are very serious charges, and they are commonly made against me on the talk page and in revision comments. But Volunteer and his like-minded editors (the ones he refers to as "our") never offer evidence that I am attempting to "disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." He and they never offer evidence that I am "Gaming the system."

But, so it goes. What do you think I should do?Haberstr (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should drop the stick. I've given numerous reasons for why I oppose the changes. If you can't WP:HEAR what I'm saying, that's not my fault. In fact, I believe Volunteer Marek put it best when he said of the present lead sentence: "Boom. Short, to the point, statement of fact, nothing confusing here". My good faith ran out long before this present spat, and I'm perfectly content to admit that. Disruptive non-consensus page moves, repeating the same thing in numerous new talk page sections, accusing editors of being part of a cabal, slapping PoV tags all over the place for no apparent reason. How many editors will it take to tell you that you are not accomplishing anything, only causing disruption? You can try and appear civil all you like, try and weasel out how all the editors that oppose you are part of a anti-Russian cabal that's out to get you and destroy NPOV, but any outsider observer will see that that's not the case. Please stop, and find something more productive to do. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester , please inform me the next time you have a discussion with an administrator in which you attack me and try to get sanctions put on me. As for your WP links: Drop the stick indicates there was a debate on my suggested revisions. Of course, as EdJohnston will see if he observes the talk page, there was no debate at all, just an immediate and unified attack on all fronts, conceding nothing, not even the most innocuous and minor changes. As for WP:HEAR, I do hear you, and what I hear is that a group of POV editors wants to harass a NPOV editor out of revising the Annexation article. I'm sure many other editors have heard the same thing in the past.Haberstr (talk)

I did not request that any sanctions be applied to you. I asked that the page be put under 1RR, which would apply to all editors, myself included. Why should anyone concede to changes that make the article worse? If your changes were good, there wouldn't be an issue. They are not. We're not going to make the encylopaedia worse for your sake. RGloucester — ☎ 13:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Haberstr. Perhaps you do not realize it, but RGloucester is your best ally in these disputes. Just follow his advice, and everything will be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I must agree with RGloucester and disagree about "missing chances". WP is not a democracy and not a place where a majority of contributors must agree and compromise with a single editor who acts against consensus. Same can be probably said about Collect, even if his edits were mostly reasonable. And no, there is no "anti-Russia" side here. For example, I said above about Haberstr: "who just made a blatant 3RR violation [108], responded with contempt [109], tried to justify his edit warring [110], claimed again the cabal [111], just as in the previous WP:AE report and later [112], and blamed others of lies [113]". Did I say "pro-Russia" or "anti-Russia" anywhere? No. But my time is up. My very best wishes (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Niki Romijn??

Hi, i really don't know why you delete articel Niki Romijn. I say where i have found her birth dat and place and there is no reason for deleting why do you deletit? And it's translate of Dutch wiki that i say it. But i don't know how do it template of thar say it translate. Can you say it.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Maxie1ho. Please read WP:BLPPROD for why the article on Niki Romijn was deleted. The article contained no reference to what Wikipedia considers a WP:reliable source. Even if we accept that www.nikiromijn.nl is a website over which she has control, it does not count as a reliable source. And no version of Wikipedia, English or Dutch, is accepted as a valid source for any statements in the article. Surely she must have received coverage in books or newspapers or by edited websites that are accepted as reliable here. If you can find such references, the article can be recreated. If you want the text of the article back, I can send it by email. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

re: Result of your edit warring complaint

Thank you for your time. In future, I'll be more patient about these subjects and I'll contact you if I have any further questions. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Just read this. Can someone rv the disputed edit. I don't want to be seen as violating 3RR. Thanks. Quis separabit? 18:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I did it myself and used the discussion here as the reasoning. Quis separabit? 22:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sanction formality

Given Jehochman's recommendation and assuming you are uninvolved, I think it would help if you were to add your signature to the ANI archive box and Ret.Prof's user talk page endorsing what Guy has said, if you agree with the sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I endorse your entry of this ban in WP:RESTRICT but prefer not to modify the existing archive box at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yozer1 and his battleground attitude

• Yozer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per this statement by Yozer1, I believe this is a gross violation of his restrictions concerning Wikipedia:AA2, per "5) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable."

• "Hello Bear, I suggest you take your Armenian tendencies elsewhere, like to another site. -Yozer1 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)".
  

Considering that Yozer1 has continued to violate his AA2 sanctions,[114][115][116] I see no reason why he should not be blocked, again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have left a note for User:Yozer1. Let's see if he will cooperate. He did recently make an effort to fix things. He self-reverted his 20 March edit at Talk:Defense of Van (1915) after I complained about his ban violation at User talk:Yozer1#Your comment at Talk:Defense of Van (1915). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

After waiting 24 hours, it appears Yozer1 is only capable of removing remarks made by others and continuing his snide childish remarks("You are not playing by the rules either Yogi Bear."), therefore I have removed his racist whining. Judging by the kid gloves being used to pamper Yozer1, when will it be, in your eyes, necessary to treat this situation as the disruptive, harassing[117][118], personal vendetta that Yozer1 continues to exhibit? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that we've heard his disappointing response, I went ahead with a one year AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

COI-related article nominated for deletion

Hi Ed,

There is a new essay on the subject of COI that I recently nominated for deletion. There is a lot of back and forth going on as you might imagine, and I thought it might be helpful to ask some editors with a historical interest in the area to give their input.

Just to be clear, you are not being canvassed based on my perceptions of what your views are. I am asking for input from the top 10 contributors to the COI Noticeboard, expecting that some expertise and interest might be found here.

Thanks in advance for your input, if you feel able and willing to participate. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 22:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That is an impressive essay. Forgive me for not getting involved at this point, but good luck with your efforts. Since a debate about amygdalin could have inspired some of this, there is always WP:ARBPS to fall back on if editing on uncommon medical treatments becomes really strange. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Happy Easter! Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't mean to be rude

I missed your post over at my talkpage a while back, I apologize, I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I just really don't think there's any point talking to the guy.. just get a load of all this. That article deals with an obscure and complex topic that's nevertheless controversial and disputed on an international level, and its pretty much been abandoned for years now. There's only Silvio1973, and he's just slanted to all hell. I mean, other Italian users would come in on a 3O from time to time and tell him he's being biased... If I get involved it'll be horrible, if I don't he'll just write up his own little essay where the facts should be. If there are more people usually he can be made to rein it in, but that's just not the case there. Nobody gives a damn about that article. -- Director (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Director, the admins can't do their thing unless people are willing to follow the steps. If you won't do the WP:DRN then the next time this problem shows up, your opponent may win by default. I agree it would be beneficial if more people would take an interest in the Istrian Exodus. That topic falls under WP:ARBMAC but no sanctions could be given to anyone unless there was a clear presentation, with evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Closure

Following this edit, the user's block log indicates you haven't actually blocked the user yet despite leaving a notice on talk page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Patience! Not everything can happen at once. It took three minutes altogether. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

'Acknowledgment' sources of Mufaddal Saifuddin

You previously wrote "See my previous message where I explained how you can appeal. Your ideas for reaching neutrality, while they might seem like common sense to you, are not how it is understood on Wikipedia. We go by what the reliable sources write. Your theory that the article should basically be written by the Dawoodi Bohra is nothing like our policy. See Wikipedia:List of policies#Content. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)"

I have repeatedly used reliable sources and repeatedly pointed out that current sources are not reliable as per Wiki requirements. My sources included the Indian Prime Minister. Is that not reliable? I now give you the verifiable, reliable source that reports widespread 'acknowledgement' of Mufaddal Saifuddin as Syedna (leader of the Dawoodi Bohras) - as I had edited and you placed the ban as a result. This was not a 'declaration of a winner'. It should be quite sufficient now for the repeal of the ban you imposed.

Please also note that at no point have I stated I am a Dawoodi Bohra or not or whether I have any allegiance in this matter or not. Nor should I be required to and nor should it be assumed of me.Noughtnotout (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The link you provided to this newspaper article suggests that a court will begin to consider the succession on April 27. I suggest that we wait and see how that comes out. The Indian Prime Minister can only be accepted as a source for his own opinion. The 'widespread acknowledgment' you claim is only an assertion in the affidavit of one of the parties in the court case. This can't be taken as a dispassionate third-party assessment of the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Indian Prime Minister is giving 'his opinion' in his official capacity as the Indian Prime Minister - on the web site of the Indian Prime Minister. That is quite a substantial endorsement. The acknowledgment of Mufaddal as 'Syedna' is now in several papers that refer to him as Syedna. How the court case goes in April does not change the acknowledgment (widespread or not) of him as Syedna today although it might do after the case is concluded and the Wikipedia entry can be amended to reflect that if that were to happen. All in all the fact remains that there is acknowledgment of him as a Syedna here(http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/others/US-court-gives-custody-of-Syedna-Saifuddins-grandkids-to-the-fathers/articleshow/46658075.cms) here (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Late-Syednas-grandchildren-custody-row-Bohras-split-over-US-court-order/articleshow/46668508.cms) here (to name just a few) (http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/syedna-row-hc-restricts-entry-of-bohra-muslims-for-hearing/article7007774.ece and that's really all that my edit said. The Hindu actually states 'plaintiff Khuzaima' and 'incumbent Syedna' as Mufaddal Saifuddi'. I don't see what waiting for the court case has to do with allowing me to continue editing given that I have substantiated that there is acknowledgment.Noughtnotout (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal your ban from the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra, see the advice that I previously left for you at User talk:Noughtnotout#Topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. Until your ban is lifted, you should not be discussing the Dawoodi Bohra anywhere on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not what the ban says. It says Dawoodi Bohra or related pages. Your talk page is not a related page.

You have now been given ample material to reverse that ban. You invoked the ban with barely a moment's hesitancy yet refute ample substantative material in requests to revoke it, why? And now you are telling me not to talk to you about it even? I have respected the ban. But you will have to continue to ignore those sources as well as the following: the BBC The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra Shia sect is on a rare visit from India. Also the UK Charities Commission Dawat-e-Hadiyah Trust UK. It was petitioned to change the name of its sole trustee - ie Mufaddal Saifuddin - but has retained him as the sole trustee at this time. Last update of their site was Feb 2015, after the passing of Burhanuddin. Also at this time the Bombay High Court has denied a request for interim relief - ie a case filed to stop Saifuddin administering the affairs of the Dawoodi Bohras and management of all their worldwide assets until the succession case itself is heard. These matters should be shown in wikipedia if these pages are to be accurate and meaningful for both informed and uninformed readers.Noughtnotout (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Haberstr, again (and Tobby72)

• Haberstr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tobby72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Ed, above in the discussion concerning the behavior of Haberstr on Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation article you state:

"The protection of this article gives a window of opportunity for User:Haberstr to show how he can work more neutrally in this topic area."

I'm sorry to say, Haberstr has failed to take advantage of this opportunity. While they have ceased edit warring (and bragging about it) on the Annexation article, they have moved onto a new one, 2014 Ukrainian revolution: [119], [120], [121], etc. This is the same thing as their actions on the Annexation article. Same POV pushing, removal of sourced content, changing the wording in a very non-neutral way and so on. The same stuff that was rejected by a strong WP:CONSENSUS on the Annexation article.

And of course, we get the same personal attacks on other editors on the talk page: [122], where Haberstr refers to other editors as "US State Department Hacks" and accuses them, falsely, of "spewing out insults and ridicule" (for the record I got nothing to do with the US State Department, and while I occasionally engage in ridicule, I do so in a calm, witty, non-spewing manner. And I don't do insults).

Frankly, this kind of behavior and these continous personal attacks make it impossible to have a productive discussion in this topic area. It also makes improving the relevant articles in a meaningful way very very hard, and extremely time consuming.

This is acerbated by the actions of user Tobby72, who's the editor that tag teamed with Haberstr on the Annexation article in starting an edit war in order to get the article protected, and who is tag teaming with Haberstr on the Revolution article. In some respects Tobby72's actions are even worse, as they are mindlessly reverting even minor and non-controversial changes to the article such as grammar, style and spelling improvements, and additionally restoring what are clearly non-reliable sources. In particular Tobby72 restored links to a fringe anti-semitic conspiracy website which contains links to malware. Apparently Tobby72 believes this to be a reliable source (the website was inserted originally by an anon account). Alternatively he is just reverting to revert. And with unintentional irony, they are of course demanding that changes be "discussed on talk" while completely failing to discuss anything themselves.

These two users have become a serious problem in this topic area and they make work there a huge headache. They are clearly acting against WP:CONSENSUS and both seem to be acting in a purposefully disruptive manner. The fact that at least Haberstr has been warned repeatedly by administrators about both the non-neutral nature of his edits and his repeated insults directed at other users makes it worse. I would really appreciate if something was done to improve the situation. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be flabbergasted if this sort of request received anything but disdain (for wasting his/her time) from a normal Wikipedia editor. What, precisely is the offense committed? Editing? Editing in a manner that one user doesn't like? Critically, I note that there is no evidence provided regarding what WP:CONSENSUS is. In addition, the complaining user is displaying his routine assumption of bad faith, in the statement that Tobby and I are "tag-teaming." Let me argue this time by example: When Marek and another editor edit in a similar POV and in closely spaced time, as takes place very frequently in the Ukraine articles, I don't accuse them of tag-teaming. Why don't I? Because (1) I assume good faith, and (2) I have no evidence that they are tag-teaming. Marek should learn from my example.

But really it just seems useless to point out to Marek that the assumption of good faith is a core principle here. I mean, just look at his "this is ridiculous" [123]. The entire entry is essentially 'I accuse you of bad faith' in every variation I can think of.

In conclusion, obviously Volunteer Marek is putting a lot of effort into pushing me and other editors who do not share his point of view away from editing Ukraine-related articles. This is part of a long-standing practice on his and like-minded editors part, and the results are horribly POV Ukraine-related articles. He and like-minded editors do this through these repetitive, hostile, and time-wasting appeals for administrative action, through creating extremely toxic, abusive-language filled and bad-faith-assuming environments on talk pages, and by reverting even the most innocuous edits by editors who do not share their POV. I suggest surveying his style and behavior and applying sanctions on Marek in order to deter his worst excesses. He seems otherwise seems completely out of control and perhaps getting even more anti-Wikipedian in his games playing.Haberstr (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I also want to add that when I wrote ""the US State Dept hacks or whatever" I was responding supportively to a comment by -2601:8:BD80:F3F:5DC0:D1D:DA5C:47E9' that was by the following bad faith, insulting and completely irrelevant remark by Volunteer Marek: "WP:NOTAFORUM. RT TV comments section is over that way." -2601:8:BD80:F3F:5DC0:D1D:DA5C:47E9 was obviously upset by the rude and disparaging comment and responded rudely himself. I am also sorry I got caught up in that cycle of insults started by Marek.Haberstr (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The offenses are:

• Adding non-neutral changes to articles, as noted previously by Ed.
• Removing well-sourced content per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, also with a view towards POV pushing
• Repeatedly insulting other editors despite multiple warnings. The latest one being referring to other editors as "US State Department hacks"
• Repeatedly making false accusations against other editors which make discussion impossible. The latest example... well, the latest example is your comment right above, where you accuse others of "abusive-language", where you accuse them of "creating a toxic environment" etc., without providing any evidence.
• Engaging in WP:POINTy disruptive behavior such as purposefully starting edit wars in order to get article pages protected, then boasting about "mission accomplished"
• Failing to discuss proposed changes in good faith, but instead repeating the same suggestion, already rejected by WP:Consensus (as noted by User:Iryna Harpy) over and over and over again. And when that fails on one article moving onto another article and doing the exact same thing.

That's just quickly off the top of my head.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer, please note I have expanded my comments immediately above your latest comment. On your latest comment, I and I think Ed or whoever is considering your request would appreciate links to what has offended you in recent days. That will support an evidence-based discussion. Otherwise, at this stage all I can say is, "No, I didn't do any of that."Haberstr (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The links are already given above. But let me put there here again: [124], [125], [126], [127]. That's just the most recent. The problems with your previous edits on these articles were already noted when Ed referred to the fact that page protection of the Annexation article gave you an opportunity to show you can edit neutrally. You failed to take advantage of this opportunity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's sort of bizarre to claim that you don't recall calling other editors "US State department hacks", since you made this comment less than a day ago, and you made a comment about it only half an hour ago [128]. How you can claim "I didn't do that" in light of this is beyond me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if you stopped modifying your comments after I've responded to them. You say one thing, I point out that it's not true, you then change your comment to make it seem like I'm making stuff up. This is... dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion, but there was an edit conflict. My point still stands: please provide links to what you are claiming so we know what you are referring to. Otherwise I am sorry that all I can say is, "No, I didn't do any of that."

No, the links were not provided 'above', those are the first time you have provided links. Now, you have a list of seven charges. And several paragraphs down from that list of charges you provide a list of links to my edits. Which edits are connected to which charges?Haberstr (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Haberstr, either you are just plain not reading what I wrote above, or you are... I don't know what it is you're doing. The very same links are provided in my comment above. Please actually read it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes Marek's POV-blanking can be on a massive scale: [129]. It's very frustrating to have everything you've done, down to the most innocuous smoothing out of clumsy passages, deleted. It is a really effective way of discouraging good faith editors who disagree with Volunteer Marek from engaging in Wikipedia editing. Of course, substantively, the complete, 100% disappearing of Victoria Nuland from the pre-coup narrative is outrageous POV.Haberstr (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Those weren't "innocuous smoothing" edits. These were POV changes, removal of sources, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. as outlined above. Against consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What I said is that, when you reverted everything, included in that were many innocuous 'smoothing' edits. It's rude to do that, and very off-putting to those of us making good faith efforts to improve an article.Haberstr (talk)

Diffs which show that these weren't "innocuous smoothing" edits:

Again, I didn't say all the edits were "innocuous smoothing" edits!Haberstr (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

POV original research based on primary sources. No consensus for inclusion of this info. These are POV edits which a whole slate of disruptive anon-IPs, and now indef banned users have tried to cram into the article. Same edit - inserting a poll despite consensus at the Annexation article strongly opposing it.

Restoring an anti-semitic conspiracy website as a source. Enough said!

Removing well sourced material for no reason except POV.

Do these look like "innocuous smoothing" to you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not previously aware of globalreasearch.ca. But I notice it is harshly criticized by some commentators according to Michel Chossudovsky#Criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This website should not be used as RS anywhere. It tells: [130] "Did you know that Kiev’s anti-Russian regime installed in a February 2014 coup by the U.S....". This is their editorial position, but they publish exactly the same: "The racist-fascist (or “nazi”) anti-Russian regime that the U.S. installed in a February 2014 coup" [131] - I am simply looking at their most recent article today. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ed, please include this entire subsection -- in particular whatever this wild stuff immediately above me is or is about -- in my complaint below about Volunteer Marek. This entire toxic attack against me is based on the false notion that I said ALL the edits he reverted -- when he reverted all my previous edits of the previous couple days in one massive revert -- were minor smoothing edits. I obviously didn't say that but now I am obliged to respond to some ridiculous production related to a website that is non-RS and that I didn't put into the article. Tobby did. But unfortunately Volunteer Marek has constructed a conspiracy between Tobby and I, based on nothing other than the usual: assumption of bad faith. Attack, ridicule, create toxicity, alienate good editors; can we do something about him/her please?Haberstr (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

How come? You just put it in the article [132]. The meaning of of the edit is obvious: you are trying to (mis)represent US as a side of the conflict using a conspiracy website as a source. The burden is yours. But this source just has been discussed by VM on talk page of the article (this thread). Did not you read it? So, instead of taking part in discussion, you decided to edit war by including this questionable source to the page without consensus. This is not "smoothing". My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems as if Haberstr didn't even bother to read what they were reverting, only WHO they were reverting (me), in an attempt to purposefully start another edit war which would lead to article protection, as they did on the Annexation article. This is clearly disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As the edit summary [133] says ("Restored edits by 2601:8:bd80:f3f:5dc0:d1d:da5c:47e9 for chart at top, added Geoffrey Pyatt name"), I was restoring the edit by "2601:8:bd80:f3f:5dc0:d1d:da5c:47e9" that I had inadvertently erased with my immediately preceding edit [134]. Did you not notice my VERY CLEARLY WORDED edit summary statement? Is that incredbible oversight why you have been attacking me endlessly for that website? Waiting for an apology.Haberstr (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of Globalreasearch.ca. After User:Volunteer Marek removed my additions and started edit war (see diff, diff), I 've reverted back his massive changes - "undo massive POV changes, discuss first on the talk page" (see diff)

The discussion then began, and Globalreasearch.ca. was removed.

See links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Ok.2C_this_is_ridiculous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tobby72#Opportunity_to_self_revert

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bosnian dispute

This thread is for any post-closure discussion after a recent AN3 complaint. I've copied the post-closure comments so far. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Yerevani Axjik has not stopped with their nationalistic edits. Yerevani Axjik has continued vandalizing several Bosnia-Herzegovina-related articles with Serbian Cyrillic, and Serbian this and Serbian that, removing any mention of Bosnian anything. After the edits of Yerevani Axjik, the Bosnian language has been replaced with "Serbo-Croatian" (example: edits on Drvar), which has not been in use since the Yugoslav-era.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sabahudin9, you are on thin ice. I recommend you find an appropriate venue to have a proper discussion of which language template should be used. At the moment, you're the person who appears to most susceptible to nationalist editing. If you can't find a way to reach agreement on the language templates, I recommend that you work on something else. Many Slavic people in the Balkans speak a language that is often referred to as Serbo-Croation. See Talk:Serbo-Croatian and its archives for all the past disputes. The following appears in the page header at Talk:Serbo-Croatian:

In English, the language spoken by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Wikipedia.

Re-opening the discussion about Serbo-Croatian every ten minutes is not a welcome development. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Yerevani Axjik's edits on Vasilije Kačavenda removed all reference to the subjects nationalist ties and replaced "underage boys" with "men" when referring to subjects recent sex abuse scandal, which is factually inaccurate, as supported by multiple sources. The user also added a poorly sourced addition to the article Osman Karabegović which claims the subject was a supporter of nationalist leader Slobodan Milošević. User has also continued adding Serbian Cyrillic translations to many towns and cities within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina including on Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč. User has also replaced the ethnic term "Bosniaks" with the Yugoslav-era "Muslims", a highly offensive and dated term. I don't understand why I am the one being vilified here for simply reverting this users nonconstructive edits ? Apparently the Bosniak Avdo Humo is now a Serb, according to User:Yerevani Axjik. --Sabahudin9 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not one article mentions that Kačavenda abused underaged children, but only that he had sex with number of adult men. You or someone else misused the sources. Give me one source (link) that was used which claims he had sex with underaged boys. And the term Muslim is not offensive at all, it's your own personal view. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

one, two, three, four, five. These are just five sources, all Serbian, but there are many more if you need them to prove that this man is a nationalist and a pedophile.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And none of them was used in the article, right? :) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Yerevani Axjik's edits on Vasilije Kačavenda removed all reference to the subjects nationalist ties and replaced "underage boys" with "men" when referring to subjects recent sex abuse scandal, which is factually inaccurate, as supported by multiple sources. The user also added a poorly sourced addition to the article Osman Karabegović which claims the subject was a supporter of nationalist leader Slobodan Milošević. User has also continued adding Serbian Cyrillic translations to many towns and cities within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina including on Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč. User has also replaced the ethnic term "Bosniaks" with the Yugoslav-era "Muslims", a highly offensive and dated term. I don't understand why I am the one being vilified here for simply reverting this users nonconstructive edits ? Apparently the Bosniak Avdo Humo is now a Serb, according to User:Yerevani Axjik. Emina, a popular Bosnian poem about a Bosniak girl, is now Serbian and a part of Serbian history. All mention of Džafer Kulenović being a Bosniak was removed, but User:Peacemaker67 reverted those edits. All mention of Bosniaks was removed from Čajniče. The Bosnian translation on Jančić's Revolt was removed and replaced with Serbian, although the event occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just take a look at User:Yerevani Axjik "contributions" and you will see that this individual is a vandal and a nationalist.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are advised to work carefully, one step at a time. If you have a problem with a specific article, start by explaining your case on that article's talk page. If you wish, you can leave a message for me here after you have described the problem on the article Talk page. Be sure to include your references. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've tried but I am the only one who is being told this. User:Yerevani Axjik has been reverting, removing, adding info to their liking in countless articles.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you give examples of where you've participated on article talk? EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Yerevani Axjik simply enters an article, changes what they feel needs to be changed to suit their own opinions and beliefs, and leaves. Talking to this person is useless. Why hasn't this user been warned about their edits that border on vandalism. Since when is Avdo Humo a Serb? (That's just one example of many)--Sabahudin9 (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You have never posted at Talk:Avdo Humo to explain your concerns. In fact, you removed the citation to Pinson's book, which another editor believed showed he was a Serb. If you are in a dispute, removing someone else's citation is not a good beginning. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Clearly I am being villain-ized by you, while Yerevani Axjik goes around vandalizing countless articles. Obviously my talks with you are going no where. I will be looking for assistance elsewhere. Good day.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you continue to revert at Avdo Humo without clearly explaining your evidence you are risking a block. It might be simpler for you to explain. I was mistaken in saying you removed the Pinson reference. It was someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources used in the Vasilije Kačavenda article indicated that he had sex with underaged boys. I asked you to show me one - and you failed to do so. Why do you think that source used in the Osman Karabegović is bad? I use Serbian translation for populated places where large number of Serbs lives, previously removed by your sockpuppet master User:DemirBajraktarevic. Yes. I'm replacing Bosniaks with Muslims in order to correct the term, since majority of those people declared as Muslims in 1991 and it's not "highly offensive". Avdo Humo lived in Belgrade and did supported Slobodan Milosevic, and declared to be a Serb by himslef. Poem Emina was writen by one of the most notable Serbian writers Aleksa Šantić. I have only added that this poem is also part of the Serbia culture, as well as Bosnian. As for Džafer Kulenović, I just reverted your unsourced edits. If User Pacemaker67 reverted me, I have no intention to discuss this at this moment, but maybe later. I also left you a message so you can discuss with me about this, but it seams you wouldn't do that. What do you want me to do about it? And it is not true you're trying to make a discussion, as we can all see here: Talk: Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina and on your Talk page. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Yerevani Axjik, according to your talk page, you get into edit wars often. You've been warned several times about edit-warring. As for Kačavenda, by law any sexual contact with a minor is rape. Statuary rape, but rape. He is also accused of sexual abusing a minor in the 1990s (which ended in the kids murder), as well as in the 2010s. 1990s reference. Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč, both in the Federation, don't have a Serb population but you still added Serbian Cyrillic to the articles. A Serb presence does not automatically make the place a Serb land. It does not permit a Serbian Cyrillic translation. User:DemirBajraktarevic is not my "sockpuppet master". If you take a look, it says that user was BLOCKED. Also my name is Sabahudin Bešlija not Demir Bajraktarević if you haven't noticed, although I legally changed my last name in December to my moms maiden name. Aleksa Šantić was not a SerbIAN writer, he was a Serb writer from Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was a Bosnian Serb. All of his work was about Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nothing about Serbia. The poem itself is about a Bosniak girl. He belongs to the Bosnian culture not SerbIAN, as he was from Bosnia-Herzegovina, not Serbia. Not difficult to grasp. User:Peacemaker67 did revert your vandalism on Džafer Kulenović because that user also sees that your edits are not productive. The fact that you don't wish to discuss all the other people you've been in edit wars with and have been reverted by is interesting.

I'm often edit warring as seen on my talk page? Really? You're the only one who wrote that on my talk page. :) As for Kačavenda - we have finished that discussion. Non of the sources used in the article says he had sex with underage boys. Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč do have Serb population, moreover, Serbs are majority there. I don't know why you hate Serbs so much. "Serb presence doesn't automatically make the place a Serb land. It does not permit a Serbian cyrillic translation". It does not permit? Really? We'll see about Demir. I couldn't care less about your real name, sorry. Šantić wrote much about Serbia, much of his poems were dedicated to Serbian patriotism, it's a shame you don't know this. If you continue talking nonsense, I'll stop discussing with you. I'm tired of this. You never, absolutely never respond to my messages. Good bye. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Niki Romijn

Hi i am of plan that i make again articel Niki Romijn. But this turn with non bio and birth date and more okay? And every role she doing it i have hear it i know hear voice so good! Are you to according and accept? Answer please.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your listening to her performance can't be used as a source on Wikipedia. If you have worked on the Dutch Wikipedia, maybe you should work some more over there because you must understand Dutch better than English? If you are running into WP:BLP problems here that may not end well. Articles about living people really have to be done correctly. I see you have expressed doubts about continuing your work on the Dutch Wikipedia. You appear to have had sourcing problems there as well. Maybe you could find an experienced editor on the Dutch Wikipedia who you could use as a mentor? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have source problem there. But which link have a link from a living person? A website from actress don't lie it if her birth date her site says that she doing Clover and Bloom. But my idea was that I make it again but with non birth datr same idea of the beginning from articel rebecca soler. In the begin the articel not says her birth datr. Now you more know it?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Birthdates are a special question, which I won't take time to answer. But the problem with your articles is they had *no reliable sources* whatever. The person's own website is not acceptable; but I've repeated that without your seeming to understand it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand you better then before! But the idea from me was that the articel Niki Romijn have a same things same it this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebecca_Soler&diff=181221486&oldid=179523770. This is was my idea. I typ it her name and say in the articel that she is a voice actress and her voice roles but next nothing according or not? And you don't to according ,why you not say it to the moment that the articel Rebecca Soler it was in the make with don't birth date?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

My idea was that i make the articel Niki Romijn with non birth date and more.. Example:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebecca_Soler&diff=181221486&oldid=179523770.This is my idea according? Non birth date and place.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still against recreating Niki Romijn until you have a reliable source that talks about her voice acting. The Rebecca Soler article is weak on sources but at least it has a USA Today interview. It also links to the web site of the publisher Macmillan which proves that the mentioned work exists. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have a source that Niki doing voice acting. This is a intervieuw with her on a blog and it's mention there that se doing voice acting. Translate this page on English. http://winxclubdutch.blogspot.nl/2014/07/interview-met-niki-romijn.html. It's Dutch. Example: Rebecca soler intervieuw.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

USA Today is a major newspaper, while that web site is not. It seems unlikely that winxclubdutch.blogspot.com would be accepted as a WP:Reliable source. Since it has 'blogspot' in its name some people may distrust it. If you wish, you can ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It appears that http://winxclub.com may be operated by the same people as the Dutch blogspot site. We do have a Wikipedia article on Winx Club. If Niki Romijn has acted in any Winx Club films you might be able to find her name in one of the publisher's web sites. Compare the short biography of Rebecca Soler found on the Macmillan site at http://us.macmillan.com/author/rebeccasoler. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-inclusion of a child sexual abuse case

You haven't responded at Talk:Tolkien family so I'm posting about what happened to the investigation here. I've found out about what happened to the cajrges against him. This Sunday Mercury news article which is archived on HighBeam Research http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-105600313.html does confirm that Tolkien wasn't charged because of being ill. The article says that a police investigation was launched into the sex abuse allegations and the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was enough evidence to put Fr Tolkien before the courts. It also says that they however decided that he was too ill to be charged. Also it says that due to this, Mr Carrie decided to launch his own civil lawsuit against the Church and the Church paid £15000 compensation to Carrie and settled the matter out of court. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the wider research. We now have awareness of how this should be covered, if consensus finds that it belongs in the article. But the whole Tolkien family article risks being deleted on grounds of notability, if anyone were to study it carefully. A segment on Father John that was occupied almost entirely by the charges and the non-indictment would probably be considered excessive. See Talk:Tolkien family#Protected for a 2010 dispute about the same issue that led to protection of the article for two weeks. The BLP issue was explained at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive93#Tolkien family. An editor who had been making the charges here on Wikipedia was indefinitely blocked and their talk page was deleted. We are not eager to see that material return to the Tolkien family page. Should Wikipedia have articles on everyone who was ever investigated by the police, but not charged? EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I think you're missing the point. There was enough evidence to charge him, however due to his ill health and age he wasn't. Also I think you're misinterpreting what an article is. He has a separate section in an article, he does not have his own article of his own. He was a head priest in many churches, helped build many schools and was also a co-author of a book. I think that his credentials are notable enough to be mentioned in the "Tolkien Family" article.KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what was said in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive93#Tolkien family. If you want to continue the discussion I suggest you take this elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek – 2

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

Almost every time I have attempted to edit articles related to the conflict in Ukraine, my additions have been removed. Certain editors are constantly involved in edit warring over this issue. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive.

The main issue is the removal of well sourced material.

My recent edits (April 2015): diff, diff, diff diff

Removed (April 2015): diff, diff, diff, diff

This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. Diff speaks for itself (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Leftcry, User:Herzen, User:Haberstr, and User:HCPUNXKID seem to agree with me)

And, of course, there is a blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

For example, I've tried to add the latest Crimean public opinion poll, but was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek and User: RGloucester (see diff, and diff) − "not adhering to NPOV". And User:Tlsandy joined here − "Poll in wrong article because article about annexation exists".

Everything has been discussed here, and clearly no consensus was reached.

Thank you for helping. A discussion pertaining to NPOV is currently taking place here. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I've removed tendentious POV pushing from these article. The fact that numerous users in good standing, like User:RGloucester, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Kudzu1 and a whole bunch of others did the exact same thing strongly suggests Tobby72, that it's you (and Haberstr) who have a problem, as you are trying to cram your own personal POV into these articles against WP:CONSENSUS. The talk page of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation shows this pretty clearly. And you're probably not doing yourself any favor by mentioning the support you've gotten from users who have since been topic banned or sanctioned for tendentious editing in this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please desist from your accusatory and threatening approach to this discussion? The fact is that there are two main perspectives on editing the Ukraine-related articles. Basically, me, User:Tobby72, and User:MyMoloboaccount disagree with User:RGloucester, User:Iryna Harpy, and User:Kudzu1. Believe it or not, we believe we are 'pushing' NPOV, just as I'm sure you and your like-minded editors believe you are pushing NPOV. Unfortunately, however, you disagree with the first part of the preceding sentence, and consistently (example in your latest comment) call our editing efforts "POV pushing." That's an assumption of bad faith, and that's the wrong kind of assumption for Wikipedia editors to make. And, once again, speaking of ad hominem attacks, what WP:CONSENSUS am I violating? When you make such an accusation, you need to provide the anti-consensus diff you are concerned about, and the related talk page discussion where a consensus is found. If those don't exist, and I don't believe they do, then how about not making such an accusation? Not making such accusations and not assuming bad faith would reduce the severe toxicity of the Ukraine-related-articles editing environment. After you've provided so many examples of it, and I have pointed them out for you, are you beginning to understand the problems with your behavior toward editors with whom you disagree?Haberstr (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You tell: "we believe we are 'pushing'". How can you speak for other users? Did they ask you to represent them or talk on their behalf? I did not. I can not speak for others, but I am not a part of any "we" or "us", and I am not pushing anything. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What can I say other than reiterating that there is no "us" per My very best wishes. It's a pretty wishy-washy cabal considering that I've worked in a collaborative and congenial manner with Leftcry and Herzen. You're engaging in your trademark disruptive methodology of shifting from content issues to personalising the issues in order to deflect attention from your own failings as an editor. If you have a real or imagined group of consorts you work with, that's your problem. I try to think and evaluate sources and due and undue content independently, but listen to and engage with any GF editor over appropriate and inappropriate content. Articles about current affairs are inherently POV in accordance with what the POV of RS is. As I understand it, as editors it is up to us to carefully parse and weigh what RS are telling us in as neutral a manner as we are able. Without leaving a wall of text for EdJohnston to have to wade through, there have been ample diffs supplied demonstrating the hysteria of even the tone of the sections you open on talk pages, as well as ES, to make it clear that you conflate RS POV with the editors who are following it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and Tobby72, could you give us an indication of how much more forum shopping you intend to do regurgitating the same diffs as if it genuinely encapsulated a year's worth of editor discussion and 'proved' that NPOV was really an issue? If you're going to reproduce the same arguments on numerous talk pages, I'd like the opportunity of setting up a similar template for my responses based on my response on the Donetsk People's Republic article. Wow, I dread to think of size my wall of text will be by the time I've trawled through the talk and article history for the mountain of evidence of discussion and consensus belying the magnitude of the molehill you've constructed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek creates serious disruption and toxicity in Ukraine-related articles. This is due to a long tradition of insults and ridicule toward toward other editors with whom he disagrees, and his vocal assumptions of bad faith against those same editors. This behavior is displayed on article talk pages and in his edit summaries. I hope you can do something about this, or advise me on next steps. Below are some examples of Marek's toxicity from the past few weeks or months just at the 2014 Ukrainian revolution talk page[135] (Assume (correctly) that the comment preceding Marek's was a non-contentious comment directly relevant to the editing of article content):

• [136]: WP:NOTAFORUM. RT TV comments section is over that way
• [137] And this mindless reverting of any and all changes - *in addition* to changing text in a very POV way - looks like a straight up provocation, meant to start an edit war. (Announcement of assumption of bad faith, assumption that I am working with another editor for nefarious purposes)
• [138]Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere else.
• [139]Please don't misrepresent sources, please stop wasting our time, please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies (the ACTUAL policies, not what you imagine the policies are), please stop using the talk pages of Wikipedia articles as a forum.

Recent edit summaries, again just at 2014 Ukrainian revolution:

• [140] undo POV changes which include introducing wacky fringe conspiracy websites ... (While the website Marek dislikes is non-RS, there's no evidence it is a "wacky fringe conspiracy websites." Calling a website "non-RS" is preferable because it is non-toxic, while calling it a 'wacky fringe conspiracy website' is extremely toxic)
• [141]undo nonsense - man, the pov pushing is hoppin' (describing another editor's (innocuous but with a POV with which he disagrees) edits as "nonsense" is rude; and, again, voicing his assumption of bad faith)
• [142]undo massive POVing ... Please stop this disruptive editing. (again, simply because they make edits with a POV he dislikes, he announces that editors are guilty of bad faith "disruptive editing.")Haberstr (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmm, adding stuff about "Barack_Obama_admits_the_role_of_US_in_regime_change_in_Ukraine", based on a fringe anti-semitic conspiracy website IS idiotic nonsense. Note the other commentator agrees.

Likewise the other editor's "innocuous edits" consisted of.... adding nonsense based on a fringe anti-semitic conspiracy website. Haberstr, you might *really* wish to reconsider whether you want to defend edits such as these by calling them "innocuous", or restore them. It does not reflect well on you.

This is just Haberstr mud slinging to divert attention away from themselves.

Oh and there *is* a difference between criticizing someone's edits (for example, calling them nonsense when they are in fact nonsense), which is what I do, as I am expected to per Wikipedia policy, and criticizing/insulting another person, for example by calling them a "hack" or falsely accusing them of bigotry, as you've done repeatedly. It's the ol' "discuss edits not editors" mantra which you seem to have so much trouble with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The comment above by Volunteer Marek can be added to the pile of evidence for the points I am making about him/her. Toxicity. Volunteer knows I didn't contribute that website, but attacks me with terminology like antisemitic, fringe, conspiracy, and wacky. This kind of behavior makes dealing with him very unpleasant. And why the accusation of mud slinging? ('Mud slinging' definition: "the use of insults and accusations, especially unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent.") I'm providing direct unedited quotes and describing those quotes accurately and soberly. And no, Marek, that edit you describe as "nonsense" was not, it was simply of a POV you didn't like (it added the USA and 'Victoria Nuland' to the long list of those who played a role in the Ukraine 'revolution'). You have every right to disagree with that or any other edit, but how about lowering the ridicule and increasing the accuracy in your rhetoric?

Anyway, we've been over this before: his characterizations assume bad faith and are non-factual and are at best tenuously related to what I or others have actually contributed. I admit, being attacked over and over and over and over for what I haven't done DOES upset me and at times it has led me in the past -- not recently -- to attack back in a manner similar to Volunteer Marek's. For that I have apologized and apologize now to all Wikipedia editors.Haberstr (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not edit this page, but the meaning of this your edit is very much clear, and not only based on changes in the infobox, but also based on the names of inserted US officials. VM was right by reverting this per WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing! Oh wait, you're not saying "sorry" for attacking me for no reason? In any case, as the edit summary CLEARLY SAYS: "Restored edits by 2601:8:bd80:f3f:5dc0:d1d:da5c:47e9 for chart at top, added Geoffrey Pyatt name." I was restoring the edits I had inadvertently erased by reverting in the immediately preceding edit. I have no opinion on the site inserted by "2601:8:bd80:f3f:5dc0:d1d:da5c:47e9".Haberstr (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The terms "antisemitic", "fringe", "conspiracy", and "wacky" all refer to the website, and are accurate descriptors of it. You are trying to pretend, by saying "(VM) attacks me with terminology like...", that I am using these terms to refer to you. Please stop being so blatantly dishonest. And as far as the fact you are the one that kept restoring this website as if it was a reliable source, that's your problem, not mine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are your OR regarding the website, and you have no RS stating same. Does that jar you a little, make you step back a bit, recognition of the fact I have just stated? In any case, why not LOWER THE TEMPERATURE and just call it a non-RS website? That's all that matters in Wikipedia editing. Why throw around those extreme labels, especially when you have no RS supporting your perspective on that website? You do realize it is extremely upsetting for me to be accused of inserting an antisemitic website into Wikipedia, don't you? When you and your like-minded editors throw around your OR and extremely negative characterization of a website, that is an example of behavior that makes Wikipedia a toxic place. Please stop doing so.Haberstr (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Those are your OR regarding the website" - do you really wish to keep on defending this website? Do you really think it's a reliable source?

And you *did* insert this website into Wikipedia. And then you pretended that my criticism of this website was an "attack" on you. Dishonestly. Look, you don't want your actions to be criticized then don't go inserting fringe conspiracy anti-semitic websites into Wikipedia. And if you do, then don't be surprised that you're called on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)