Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

admin actions?

Ed, I don't know what courses are available at present with respect to the ongoing dispute on the List of indigenous peoples page, but it would appear that Evildoer is trying to even cut the process of the RfC short, as per this diff

As I describe in the following Sock investigation filed with respect to Evildoer187 and the IP address responsible for an edit to shorten the Talk page archiving period to 15 days, you informed me on your Talk page that the RfC could take 30 days, and it would seem that Evildoer had been following that thread on your Talk page in light of his involvement and comments, as clearly made evident by his commment: Evildoer187 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC).

Would you consider his reversion of the edit I made reverting the edit made by the IP address to constitute a violation of any WP policy? His summary statement of the edit, "This horse is on its last breath. You have 15 days to present a solid, rational argument for your proposed edits" would seem to indicate that he is attempting to force the RfC off the page before it has even run its course.

sock investigation

I'm requesting your advice as an administrator regarding the possible courses of action in such a case.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

See my comment at Talk:List of indigenous peoples#Bot archiving temporarily disabled. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I feel bad now that I see how close it is to the holiday season break, but it certainly would not have been the right thing to do to ignore.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I didn't know about that. I thought he was trying to break the rules by prolonging the discussion indefinitely. I just saw the Bot archive it and thought that's how it has to be. I believe it is necessary for all parties involved to remember that they cannot keep extending the duration period just because they can't get the edits they want implemented.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to the permanent block of User:Kuebie

EdJohnston, I would like to appeal to the permanent block of Kuebie by you[1] regarding his or her actions on Pure blood theory of Korea, now merged to Korean ethnic nationalism. First, I would like to mention that I am currently involved in an ANI notice involving two editors[2], one of whom made the ANI notice that resulted in the block of Kuebie, and another of whom was involved in edit warring with Kuebie. Both these editors are currently involved in edit warring with myself "coincidentally" on all articles I am currently involved in. Second, I would like to state that Pure blood theory of Korea was a very repulsive article to Korean editors including myself, therefore I understand the emotional context under which Kuebie had behaved. I myself have been unable to make much contributions to the article at the time due to its repulsiveness and improper context. Nevertheless, I have made some edits. After couple of month in my absence and without my knowledge, Benlisquare, Quigley and Kubie were engaging in edit wars involving some of my edits. The "previous version" Quigley presented in the ANI notice is my own version, with a minor edit to spelling by another editor[3]. In the next edit, this has been reverted by a series of edtis by an anonymous editor[4][5] and Hwkwon[6]. These reverts were not presented as the "previous version" by Quigley in the ANI notice. This has been reverted by Kuebie[7], the first revert presented by Quigley. This was reverted by Benlisquare[8], claiming my edits to be "poorly sourced". This lead to a partial second revert by Kuebie[9], presented as the second revert. This was then reverted by Quigley[10]. This lead another revert by Kuebie[11], presented as the third revert. Then this was reverted by Quigley again[12], claiming that it is the "consensus version" despite the lack of consensus. This was reverted by Kuebie[13], reasoning that it is not the "consensus version", and presented as the fourth revert. Please review the "previous version" presented in the ANI notice[14] and the fourth revert version by Kuebie[15]. The only difference are two edits on Confucianism and the case of Kim Ilsung, both of which were my additions, one removed by an anonymous editor and another removed by Hkwon. I would like to appeal that these reverts were made in the course of edit warring, in which both parties are guilty of, and made under false pretenses in the ANI noticeboard. The "previous version" was practically that of my own, and I find the reverts made by Benlisquare and Quigley were made without consensus. This edit warring was done in my absence and without my knowledge. After this has come to my attention, I have engaged with Benlisquare in faithful discussions regarding the relevance of the contested material.[16] For these reasons, I appeal to the unblock of Kuebie on the basis of this one particular incident, where both parties were edit warring, and the case was presented under false pretenses. I will not defend prior actions by Kuebie before this incident, but I ask that you review and judge upon this one particular incident. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a block from August 2011. It is a conventional indef block that can be lifted by any admin. Kuebie was interested in the history of Korea, and he seemed to be determined to keep reverting to his own POV indefinitely. The problem was not one single event but a long-time pattern. He managed to get blocked by eight different administrators. I don't see an unblock as being likely unless he follows the steps of WP:GAB and makes a proper unblock request on his own talk page. He should explain what he intends to do differently in the future. We don't usually accept one person asking for unblock of someone else unless the block itself was a mistake. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

123brianbrain

Hey Ed, looks like we combined forces to block and notify User talk:123brianbrain, but didn't quite match! I was thinking indef, but I'll defer to you on the block time - feel free to change it! Dreadstar ☥ 04:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef is better, it just didn't occur to me. You are welcome to add whatever block notice you prefer. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Cool, I've added the notice. Dreadstar ☥ 04:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And, happy holidays to you! Dreadstar ☥ 04:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppets

I believe these two editors are sock puppet accounts of one another. Is there a way to find out for sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.106.111.168

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.248.114.33

Evildoer187 (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would like to know if there's a way to hide my talk page history from other users. User Ubikwit seems to be monitoring it and using allegations others have posted on my page as a means to discredit me. I am thinking of filing another complaint against him, but I'm not sure yet.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions to an uninvolved admin

Is this not WP:CANVASSING. Will it have a sanction or not? (+ Admins do not have a responsibility to CU an IP that certainly is some user's sock, as may be understood so clearly in its first day edits?) Will you be kind enough to take this matter in your hands? Season's greetings. --E4024 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed. The anonymous user came to my talk to ask my advice. Please see from the links I provide that the above user failed to WP:AGF and he gave the newcomer threatening messages on their talkpage implying sockpuppetry and threatening section titles like "Never forget". By the way Best of the Season to you and yours. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Per http://94.46.15.18/ this computer is running a web server. Web servers are blocked as though they were open proxies, so I've blocked this IP for six months. The use of a web server is a technique for hiding the real IP you are editing from. This IP was previously blocked two months by Procseebot. The IP is returning right after the expiry of their previous block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. And another question: The IP has appeared suddenly and contributed to the split discussion at Cyprus article. I believe their edits should be cleared from there not to confuse the user who will close that request. No? Could you do something for that also? --E4024 (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, Could you please also check the 14.0.208.42 (talk · contribs), 14.0.208.51 (talk · contribs), 14.0.208.97 (talk · contribs), 14.0.208.113 (talk · contribs) is this also an open proxy? [17] [18] [19]. Thank you 23x2 φ 12:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The user who contributes from 14.0.208.* seems to be trying to cover his tracks and he is hopping IPs quickly. Unless you can find evidence of edit warring or improper behavior, I don't see any action that can be taken at present. I notice you also asked User talk:Elockid and he didn't notice any proxies. The IPs are from Hong Kong. He is interested in both Taiwan and Cyprus. He contributed (without any embarrassment) using three different IPs in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Concern over edits. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Soon after Nableezy and I had a disagreement at Talk:Operation Pillar of Defense#Maan News regarding a newspaper that prints vile antisemitic slurs such as Jews across the world are cowards, a nation of agitators, and are slaves worthy of punishment, Nableezy proceeded to nominate my sandbox for speedy deletion. I do not appreciate this malicious hounding. Ankh.Morpork 21:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, that "sandbox" (quotes because that very obviously is not related to any article work) showed up in a google search for "سوسن نجيب عبد الحليم", which I searched for after you repeatedly brought up a completely irrelevant point on an articles talk page. You copied an entire article from another website, and then removed the speedy deletion nomination (a violation of the rules that is explicitly noted on the tag you removed) from an unambiguous copyright violation. That you follow the violation of both the law and Wikipedia policy with the unsubstantiated personal attack that maliciously hounded you is, well, kind of funny. nableezy - 22:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That you consider a newspaper that prints vicious antisemitic vitriol a reliable source is far from humerous.Ankh.Morpork 22:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I have taken this to ANI. Ankh.Morpork 22:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Esoglou has again violated his editing restrictions.[20] When is something going to be done about this? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The editing restrictions on you and Esoglou are still on the books in WP:RESTRICT, but I have dropped out of enforcing them. Is there an actual dispute at Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox)? The article contains both Eastern and Western elements, so it's not clear how to handle it. Would you prefer that the rule was interpreted so that neither of you could edit there? EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Help Please

The User:Nymf makes all undo what I edit in Wikipedia Article. I need help please. He undo all just annoy me. Without reference or without reason.

examples:

for example a new picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Walker

list of Albanian americans delete he withot references and grounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Albanian_Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arta,_Greece&action=history

from older revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Belushi&oldid=530122564

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Belushi&oldid=530035768
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masiela_Lusha&action=history

it can not go on like this.

Yours truly User:Anthony.al

Hello Anthony.al. I looked at your recent edit history, which is full of conflicts about Albania:
It looks like User:Qwyrxian has already given you some advice, which I think you should follow. It appears that you've been edit warring at Jim Belushi. If your edits are nationalistic or badly sourced you risk being sanctioned. In your entire history on Wikipedia it looks like you have never posted on an article talk page. Nationalistic edits about Albania and people of Albanian descent risk getting a warning under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

Ed, please look at this report if you haven't already done so. I last blocked the editor on November 5. Their post-block behavior and the post-block wrangling by several admins, including me, wasn't pretty. Here is that discussion before it was removed by Bidgee - I believe it's fairly complete. Honestly, until I looked at the history, I didn't even remember the brouhaha from November.

Do you think I'm involved? I don't believe so as all of that was in an administrative context, and if we were to become involved just because an editor attacked us after a block, that would improperly cramp our ability to act. Still, I thought I'd ask your view.

Even if not involved, I haven't decided whether I will take any action on the report.

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like User:Tariqabjotu has already closed the complaint with no action. If the reverts continue, I guess we will have a new ball game. The submitter did not ask for a block. Bigbee has 47,000 edits and he makes a large number of style fixes. A war sometimes occurs when the subject of the article is recently deceased. Still, it appeared to be five reverts. I don't think you became involved due to the previous case, but 3RR cases are usually closed by a one-admin decision. It would be sensible to not close two cases in a row involving the same person when the close might be disputable. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed, glad I came here. Have a great new year!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough is enough

I am expecting some help from uninvolved admins, as humans and users, first of all, to stop certain BAD FAITH POV imposition to WP articles. You warned me about a silly edit on a silly issue in this area (which I had told you, before the warning, that you could revert) and now the same users who are trying to turn this to their national (and nationalist) WP, one of them with a pic of a so-called monument to ASALA terrorists (until I complained to an admin) another sending insults to my TP are making a Criminal Court of themselves and putting sentence to open cases in Turkish justice. Were you who told me the other day something like "it was good to have people like me (aka Turks) who could bring whatsoever positive to WP"; soon there will be none of those people left here... Who would like to be in a place receiving this treatment? Will this loss of contributors make WP better? (I came here to work and am working several hours a day, and could make only ONE short article until now, trying to stop WP from destruction all the rest of the time!) Have a good year; and it's in your hands not to be disturbed by me any more: Do nothing. --E4024 (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"until I complained to an admin" I would like to see your complains. Also my user page content isn't your business. (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) especially when you're making it a discussion topic. And please explain what kind of insults did User:Proudbolsahye make on your talk page.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 22:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me what this is about? EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for semi-protecting Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. That should help alleviate some of the nonsense... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

I cannot help but feel that several editors are monitoring my contributions and my talk page history. I honestly don't care who does it, or why? I don't feel comfortable having eyes on me at all times. Is there anything I can do to make it stop?Evildoer187 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to edit in a highly contentious area, probably this is how you have to live. There are areas of the encyclopedia which are much quieter. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please help against vandalism

Hello dear Edjohnston,

as a user i have a problem, and i hope you can help me. I have uploaded a map, which is made by Professor M. Izady, Columbia University, USA. This map is describing the linguistic composition of middle east. And I have added that to wikipedia (Article: kurd ) or ( kurdish language ), in all languages in wikipedia. But a turkish fascist user, who hates kurds, delated my map. I did “undo” but now my commons picture ( the map ) is removed “becoz of licenzing”. I think, it is done by the same fascist user ( takabeg ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Takabeg

And now I don’t know what I can do against this vandalism. Here you see my scientifical source and the link to Professor Dr. Izady’s work in Columbia University.

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Mid_East_Linguistic_lg.jpg

example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language

I thank you for your help and info. Best regards, Sagapane (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

From the page at [21] I am guessing that a map which you uploaded at Commons was deleted there due to lack of copyright permission. I don't understand why you are asking me for 'help against vandalism', especially when you are referring to other editors as 'fascists'. Please be aware that administrators can take action against people who seem to be editing in support of their nationalist cause. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thank you for your answer, but columbia university allowd non commercial using of maps as scientifal source.
this person has no right to delete. the map was the same which you see here:
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Mid_East_Linguistic_lg.jpg
thank you, Sagapane (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The person who did the deletion is a Commons administrator. Permission for non-commercial use is not enough. The map bears a copyright notice showing M. Izadi as the owner. He would have to release the map under CC-BY-SA for it to be used in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you for explain, he will do that, I will send a message to him again. Sagapane (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Tiggerjay's talk page.
Message added 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiggerjay (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

HPotato

Hi Ed and sorry for the trouble but somehow HPotato (talk · contribs) does not appear blocked. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Ed. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi Ed. Could I trouble you for a little assistance in a matter upon which you recently commented? My request that we bury the hatchet was met with this coupled with this. Apparently he would rather institute a "voluntary" article ban on me, and also insists that an off-topic tirade about a fellow editor (instead of edits) remain on an article Talk page -- an action that serves no useful purpose, and appears intended only to antagonize, complete with a challenge/dare that I do something about it. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The comment in question is as follows:
"Xenophrenic, I strongly suggest that you voluntarily withdraw from editing this article. I do not believe that you are capable of editing it with a neutral point of view, and I am quite certain that your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies is incorrect."[22]
Xenophrenic decided to edit the above comments to remove my criticism and has engaged in an edit war[23][24][25][26][27][28] in an attempt to keep the comments out. I consider this to be vandalism of my comments and have treated it accordingly.
Please note that Xenophrenic has a habit of mixing his comments in with his reverts, so it may look like there is additional material being reverted. I have been reinserting his comments after rolling back the vandalism.[29] Occasionally he reverts again while I was cutting and pasting, but it looks like I was always able to make it so that I was only removing the vandalism of other people's comments.
The "request that we bury the hatchet" was accompanied by persistent vandalism and edit warring. Apparently burying the hatchet requires that I accept vandalism of my comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow up

Hi Ed. Just wanted to let you know as a follow up from our prior edit-warring, that Cantaloupe2 and I have gotten into another dispute on the PRSA article, which is currently pending GA review. I followed your advice and started a DRN string early in the dispute.[30] Unlike previously, Cantaloupe's position is quite reasonable and I'm hopeful we can discuss it and compromise. Corporate 01:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Message received. But now that your account has been renamed shouldn't you be using CorporateM as a signature? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I would prefer to just go by Corporate in my signature, but if that's not kosher I'll change it. Corporate 15:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There is already a User:Corporate on the English Wikipedia (who was not usurped) and you don't want to be confused with him. You asked for a change of user name so you should probably follow through. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done
I think the dispute with Cantaloupe is resolved for now. User:CorporateM 21:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Ed, it has become pretty clear that I will need to get an IBAN with Cantaloupe2, who is still hounding me and being disruptive in my works-in-progress that I am bringing up to GA. I see that he exhibits similar harassment and stalking behavior with quite a few other editors and I am not expecting it to be fixed any other way.
What do I need to do to make this happen? He already demonstrated obvious ABF behavior by vandalizing Crashplan and the Hounding is without a doubt. I don't honestly believe that he thinks he is improving Wikipedia when he marks the New York Times as "better source needed" or jumps on my articles instead of waiting for a GA reviewer. CorporateM (Talk) 20:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd need to see a better case than the one you've provided here. Recently you made this edit. This takes out a reviewer comment, saying that it took over four hours for him to back up 321 megabytes. While forum posts are not usable, some of these comments were from a a reviewer for Techworld. Many people realize that online backup services are slow, so this is something that our readers may care about. You also are claiming 'vandalism'. In my experience many charges of vandalism are not correct, when the parties are having a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I didn't notice that aspect of my revert, because I was just auto-reverting the personal blog he was adding to antagonize me. I had added myself through the request edit system "but the worst performer in archiving an entire system drive, which took almost five days." Regardless of whether he sometimes (by chance) has a reasonable POV, aren't there rules against stalking people? I mean I don't contest that we could probably find a better source for PRSA's publications, but I do find it disruptive that he is following me around and deleting my content faster than I can get a GA review. It seems like the only way to avoid his harassment is to be a perfect editor, because if I make even the smallest mistake he will be looking over my shoulder ready to pounce on it. Isn't that the point of Hounding? CorporateM (Talk) 20:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I gave a very clear description in the edit note that a better source than a "list of winners" is needed to substantiate the meaning of different classes of anvils, as evidenced in this edit comment. CorporateM later admitted that he assumed something not substantiated directly by source which is synthesis. I felt the listed source didn't support the claim that was made, therefore I marked it as dubious, because it was not a proper reference for the context. I don't believe there was any wrong doing. I flagged it as dubious and it lead to a discovery of fabrication which was later corrected after CorporateM conferred a different source. This is clearly an improvement. His allegation that I'm jumping on "his article" is not substantiated, because everything here is Creative Commons and there's no such thing as my article or your article on Wikipedia. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


Just an FYI - we are at the edit-warring board again.[31]

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Zappa thing - again

Hi Ed, re this: Please have a look at recent contributions Special:Contributions/Mmlov. I won't touch anything and will not report the user again. I'll leave that up to you, so to speak. Happy 2013, by the way! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Frank Zappa and notified Mmlov again. Let me know if the problem continues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Am I about to be topic banned, or banned altogether from Wikipedia? I've noticed that some editors are in favor of this. I support the IBAN, but not the topic ban. My personal belief is that I will be able to work on these topics better once the IBAN is in place, as I will no longer feel as though I am being monitored relentlessly. Furthermore, my editing history will show you that I am more than happy to concede when it is clear that consensus is against me. Thank you.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the most practical choice is to ban both of you from topics that have any relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather that not happen. Most of my editing here is on articles relating to those topics. Doing this will leave me with virtually nothing left to do.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Unless you can move away from topics where you have a strong personal engagement, you won't make much progress here. Enthusiasm is useful if it can mesh with other's interests. If you are just pushing one side of a long-running struggle you won't get far. You've not yet found any topics where you can edit neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Progress towards what, may I ask?Evildoer187 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
If you can make edits to articles which are accepted by consensus, you'll be making progress. You and Ubikwit have made yourself nuisances in several places and you are a continual drain on the time of admins and regular editors. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
But my principle focus has always been things relating to Jews, Israel, etc. I can't help but take this as a sign that I should simply hang up my hat.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
So:
(a) Your only interest on Wikipedia is topics relating to Jews and Israel
(b) You find that you cannot edit neutrally regarding Jews or Israel.
I guess that's a QED that you cannot usefully edit on Wikipedia. I'm sure you know that there are lots of articles relating to Judaism and Israel that don't involve the Arab-Israeli conflict. We welcome new sourced content. Are you up for that? EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought you meant that I would be barred from all topics relating to Judaism and Israel. That's why I objected, because I am not knowledgeable in any other field.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
So yes, I am up for it.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a list anywhere of topics that pertain to the I/P conflict, so I know which articles to stay away from?Evildoer187 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Usually you can see the {{ARBPIA}} banner on talk pages of articles that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Even if an article mentions the conflict tangentially, you are OK if you don't edit anything which relates to the conflict. Look for example at Category:GA-Class Israel-related articles. You can edit Tel Aviv without getting into trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Come to think of it, this is probably for the best. I hope this IBAN and topic ban will be implemented as soon as possible. At this point, I am just concerned about the neutrality of the articles in question. I am not particularly happy about the proposed topic ban, but it does give me a sense of relief knowing what the alternative would be.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ed. I would appreciate it if you implemented the topic ban/IBAN now. This discussion here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colonialism#Israel) is getting increasingly ugly, and he refuses to stop. There is a near unanimous consensus that the IBAN/2 way topic ban is the appropriate thing to do. Please, just end this already. I am begging you. I can't deal with him anymore.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One last thing I now believe it is necessary to attach the ARBPIA: Arab-Israeli conflict banner to the colonialism and settler colonialism articles, in light of the controversy that now plagues these topics. I am, and remain, concerned about the level of animosity and bias that pervades many discussions pertaining to the I/P conflict.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Tiggerjay's talk page.
Message added 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiggerjay (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction is needed in the introduction of the names at the beginning of the Kars article.

Correction is needed in the introduction of the names at the beginning of the Kars article.

The etymological source of the name of the city of Kars is only about the Ottoman Turkish version, not about the Armenian version which already has a source in the Etymology section of the article; and nor is it about the "Russian" version which does not have any verifiable source in the article at all, just like the Azerbaijani and Kurdish versions which were removed for the same reason, and needs to be removed. Could you add a reference link besides the Armenian version in the introduction, from the Etymology section?

Thank you

Ramscheid (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The names of the city of Kars in Azerbaijani and Kurdish need to be restored.
Apart from a demographic presence, Azerbaijanis, Kurds, and Russians have a historical presence, The unilateral removal of the etymological versions in Azerbaijani, Kurdish and Russian is not justified. Unfortunately there is an attempt to erase their presence in the article altogether due to POV reasons, as has been done many times before. Some users are selectively choosing and erasing some sections of the city’s article, in disregard of Wikipedia policies. Can you undo this and restore the previous version? Thank you. Saguamundi (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk-back

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 04:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Banned user:Iaaasi

Banned user:Iaaasi returned as user:Carpathians--Medorm (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ... said the sockpuppet Medorm of Stubes99 Carpathians (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:AT

Did ErikHaugen and Apteva adequately explain what I was up to there, or do you need to hear it in my own words? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks to that you haven't been invoking discretionary sanctions in the standard way. The case page shows no record of any enforcement, nor of any sanctions being imposed under the remedies. Except for the existing 1RR imposed by Guerillero last October at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Now logged here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Moo

Any chance you can nuke the old Lucerna (cattle breed) redir left over from yesterday's moving, too? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 23:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

I noticed that the page protection for List of common misconceptions has expired but the {pp-dispute template} is still there. Is that something that I (non-admin) can remove? Or is that something that you have to do manually? (I would think there would be bot to remove expired templates, but apparently not.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Lowercase sigmabot often seems to take care of this. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll wait for the bot to remove it. But just out of curiosity, is a non-admin allowed to remove it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I already removed it, but I see no reason that regular editors couldn't take care of this if necessary. Some templates such as pp-protect don't create a padlock unless the protection is active, so adding or removing them is not a high priority anyway. I checked that User:Lowercase sigmabot is currently running, so I don't know why it didn't find the expired template this time around. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation of source

I noticed you protected the Albania page, so I came asking for advice. I removed a sourced figure on religion in the page, because after conducting an evaluation of that source, i made the argument that it was faulty. the evaluation is at the bottom of the talk page. it keeps however getting reverted by random people. Would you mind lending a hand, or giving your thoughts, Id rather not result in an edit war with random users. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noarmsnolegsnolife (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You have already broken WP:3RR at Albania on January 8. Can you explain why you should not be blocked? Your views are extremely similar to those of some editors who are now blocked as socks. Removal of the CIA numbers from the article, for instance, was a trademark of User:IllusionFinal. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

what...? i was just saying the source was almost 100 years old, and unrealistic because it contradicts the new census. i reverted one of the times, to tell users to read my evaluation of the source in the talk page, but no one even bothered reverting it immediately. I showed that the source of the CIA info was inaccurate and outdated, how is that against the rules....it still keeps getting reverted for no reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noarmsnolegsnolife (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston

I m observing all the things from wikipedia like official notice.Am not do any attempt like Neglecting.i hope this is fact.would i get further guidance from you?may i?.i believe that senior persons guidance are always precious .so said.Thank you sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshwar.om (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Thiruvengadam Temple#Requested move. It looks like your recent move of the article was done without consensus. The name that was in place for a long time was Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. It is still referred to by that name in about 200 articles, so the effect of your recent move is to break a lot of links. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Tirumala Venkateswara Temple move

Hi EdJohnston, the original title of the article was Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. It was moved by User:Eshwar.om (on January 7) to a new and erroneous title "Tirumala Venkateswara Temple or Thiruvengadam temple" which was reverted back by User:WikiDan61. Again, on January 9, the article was moved to "Thiruvengadam Temple" by User:Eshwar.om. Without any proper discussion, xhe is continuously changing title and content ([32] [33] [34]). I have moved it back to its original title until we can get a consensus on whether to move it (to Thiruvengadam temple) or not. But after several fiddles, original talk page is still redirected to Talk:Thiruvengadam Temple, so I request you to move it back until we finish the discussion. Thanks. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page is now fixed. I've also move-protected the article to prevent further turmoil before the move discussion closes. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've started a new request on the behalf of User:Eshwar.om. — Bill william comptonTalk 05:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Sreejiraj

I'd appreciate it if you could possibly comment on WP:ANI concerning this post [35] by User:Sreejiraj in the light of the warning you previously gave regarding tendentious editing. You might also like to comment on this posting at WP:ANI itself, [36] and regarding Sreejraj's other recent posts at the Village Pump discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that the ANI thread gave enough visibility to the problem that there can be a normal discussion from now on. If follow-up is needed, it may be better to ask one of the admins who works on Indian issues. The set of admins who have imposed sanctions under WP:GS/Caste is a very short list, and one of them is now on Arbcom. If this runs on for a long time, you could ask for a formal RfC and if necessary ask for ground rules (like limits on length of postings). EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare, 1st Baronet

I must hold my hand up as being, at least in this instance, incompetent. I agree that I have created a double redirect; as I certainly did not in any shape or form edit the article, in either of its manifestations, it must have been as a result of a CSD request, but I cannot backtrack to find the original. One of our more software-orientated colleagues could probably help; all I can do is apologise. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

By chance I looked at 'deleted edits' under Geoffrey Shakespeare and the real article is down there. Do you want to restore it, or shall I? EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the article. Thank you. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tinhead

Oh, I thought that was just a redirect for the game! I don't know too much about the world, no, though the first page Google comes up with nothing about the village. Move done and hatnotes added, thank you. Despatche (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right. The one I put on Edington should probably be kept though, due to it being under a very different name and "Tinhead" redirecting there. Despatche (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

request for documentation of an edit

Hi,

I expect that this will come up again, so I request that you document why you made this edit.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian already declined to block Reyk in his response on 8 January, with the suggestion that you pursue dispute resolution if you were not satisfied. If a discussion at AN3 continues many days after closure, that is usually a sign that the matter should be submitted somewhere else. The only remaining possibility for admin action was to start enforcing WP:NPA on the continued sniping (including 'tiresome windbag' from Reyk), and closing the report seemed the better option. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a t-shirt

A Tshirt!
I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Your 3RRN posting reminded you what a bitchin' admin you are. Have a t-shirt! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, WLU! EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Velebit, smells like Velebit...

Hi EdJohnston, Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[37] refers.

Regarding Sock Puppetry

User:Serafin
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Regarding the IP numbers in the discussion section all are mine enters. I do not register myself as an user since the miserable characters who make revenge on all you Wikipedia works wherever you go. Let me know where is the rule about IP entires as sockpupetry. It would be unconsistent. I need not to register as user, and I do not pretend at my entires as diferent persons. I think I express myself clearly - If i do not pretend to be multiperson I am not sockpupet. I hope the restiction on History2007 are equal and he can not follow his will in present sytuation. The issue I will disscuse on talk page of the article hopping for administrator resonable final.

I provided the modern resources which set the date of bird and date of death. It is also clear that the lost years are between the age 12 to the year(s) of ministry. I am going to introduce the time table of Jesus' live - and the reader can count himself. History2007 had been asked about the 15-18 digits - how they were counted. He however did not reveal if he counted it himself or the method used in the old sources 1989 and 1999. In that condition I feel only his stubbornness and self fluffiness only. Regarding Joshua Jonathan I will not comment very much, it is amusing that so many people assuming that number of votes NO means something in scientific work. Facts and logic are deciding – this is the rule of independent experienced editor to judge the facts and logic not the numbers of NO. I do not think the short entrance by Joshua Jonathan is factual, as well as others editors who do not provide detailed scientific info. Finally because Joshua Jonathan follows so callously History2007 I have filling the History2007 and Joshua Jonathan are the same person.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This must be about [38]. See WP:SOCK. We sometimes make exceptions when people are new, but you seem to be experienced. You are certainly capable of registering an account if you want to participate in hot disputes. If you use a fluctuating IP, you have no permanent talk page where people can leave you messages. Your suggestion that History2007 and Joshua Jonathan are the same person raises questions about your judgment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I ask for section (apropirate text)about sockpuppetry, also the exception you sugest is not writen fundation so any word of this kinde is, let say overgrow. The hot dispute is, and should be (in my opinion) better in Talk Page in whole, so I resigned from registering as a result from personal "followers" of my future work. As you can see people do not like logic and answer to simple questions. Thery are vendictive (the closer example is Joshua Jonathan) who ask if more restiction will be on IP. My judgement about Joshua Jonathan and History2007 is base of several momentary apperance of both when I was envolved in conversation with only one. are they only so close "friend" in spiryt? The conflict was put on the pinhead about the citation by History2007. The citation gives wrong number thus I removed digits (not authors) after he decided to remove description of counting with different resources. I was hoping that will end the conflict. I did not. I will live the citation and digit but I will introduce appropriate table for reader to count. If History2007 will oppose I will return to you. This is unreasonable from History2007 to block any newer approach, I hope that time you will be able judge also his character.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What an amazing waste of time after all. It was the indef user:Serafin anyway. History2007 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

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

PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Read and replied. The situation does not appear to be a current problem. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I sent you another inquiry on a semi-unrelated matter. Sorry to bug you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Good Olfactory's talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmlov Zappa

Hi Ed, remember I promised to keep you posted on Mmlov's edits at Zappa? Well, I seems that I had accidentally removed Zappa from my watchlist, but I still had Mmlov's talk page on it, so I just now noticed that he got blocked for this edit and summary. Needless to say, I undid the edit and added Zappa to my watchlist again. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi EdJohnston, FYI I've the block you logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review to the original case page. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

If you could spare an eye for Aaron Swartz it would be welcome. Two problems particularly strike me:

  • Some people are very eager to insert categories and text to say that the subject was Jewish as prominently as possible. This began with comments on the talk page about the subject's "physiognomy". I think in this case it's inappropriate.
  • We're also having a small edit war as editors seek to add denigratory material and remove favorable comments, citing various rationales.

This is a sensitive page and also conspicuous.MarkBernstein (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is now getting 50-100 edits per day which is too many for me to dig through to find the issues you have mentioned. If you want me to look at something, please provide diffs, or at least give the date and time of the changes. Overall, there are a lot of experienced editors working on this article and even the IPs seem to know what they're doing. One would expect that any obvious lack of neutrality would be noticed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

East Germany

" Declined – After discussing this with User:Kudpung I'm declining to lift the protection. The people who are active on the talk page should consider submitting an edit request to change the lead. Such a consensus (if one can be found) would be a welcome change from the pattern up till now. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC) "

FYI, the welcome change has happened — the lead's been changed via an edit request. See Talk:East Germany. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That is good news! I defer to Kudpung any decision about the continued protection. It seems that he will carefully listen to any input. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

G'day EdJohnston, there is a thread at WP:ANI that relates to what looks like an attempted work-around for the move-block you placed on Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia late last year. If you get a chance, would you mind having a look? [39] Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The thread at ANI about this appears to be resolved thanks to two other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, cheers anyway. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Armenian issues

Do you remember warning me for something I did not reject, but only accepted in my TP instead of your TP? Now see how user:MarshallBagramyan is reverting me twice in 5 (f-i-v-e) minutes? I am expecting a similar warning for them. (Indeed I had no intentions to come back here, but a sincerity test is never bad.) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me where this dispute is occurring, and let me know if you've already tried resolving it through discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Here: 1 and 2. For "futile" discussions see TP of the concerned article. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks to me that the Marshal's first edit was moving your new reference from one section to another. That appears to be a regular edit rather than a revert. His second edit *was* a revert. There is no discussion regarding this matter on the article talk page. I encourage you to continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

[40].--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis is too great a name for David P. Forsythe to mention loosely. And I cannot see Dr. Yücel Güçlü's name in his "denialists" list. I only see your prejudice in your edits. --E4024 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Any more mysterious rejoinders, please take them to the article talk page. And beware of personal attacks. There is probably a way to track the term 'denialist' back to reliable sources. It is a bit puzzling that the term 'denialist' only occurs in the reference list but not in the article proper. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I explained the "prejudice" in the article's TP; so there is no personal attack. As regards article body, never mind, they will add that ASAP. --E4024 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Herrera new

Dear Ed,

I added ALL the sources for what I put. Please, see it. And reliable ones. Just, please, access them.

Sincerely,

--TheEconomissst (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Herrera

Dear EdJohnston,

You should see what's happening. Like, for example Salvador Dalí, he's also the 1st Marqués de Dalí de Pubol, so that is in her first page. Well, I think that we maybe could not mention her husband at the first part. So, I think that this way, please, see now the article, would be better. You should understand that that's a millennial tradition, and Carolina Herrera, as Salvador Dalí, even not using it, she is, and so the title must be mentioned at the first part. I think that now would be better. Also I recommend to you, to see about the Duchess of Cadaval on the Talk:Carolina Herrera (fashion designer). 'cause there we've lots of sources about the Duchess ( the highest title in the Portuguese nobility). Also, I would like that you read what I said to DGG:

" The Duchess of Cadaval came out constantly in the social press in general, especially in the royal magazines, because, as The Duchess of Cadaval, she's the Head of the House of Cadaval, that descends of the Portuguese Royal House, and that's relative of all the European royal house, including the House of Windsor, and therefore relative of your Queen (the Queen of the Americans, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II); and she's also married with Prince Charles-Philippe d'Orléans, that's a grandson of the Count of Paris, the King of France de jure, and also very very well-known in France and Europe. Also her sister is married to the heir of Hermès."

That's very important, besides the links of the page that I put here (the Carolina Herrera article's talk page), 'cause there are lots of links about Her Excellency The Duchess of Cadaval, as she's also The Duchess of Anjou and Princess Diana of Orléans, by marriage - but The Duchess of Cadaval in her own right, and as she's known worldwide. About the US First Ladies, I put the two, and I never retired Jackie Onassis, just Michelle Obama, but now I put her one more time. I expect that you have a mind focused on the world, not only in the US world, 'cause the world is very big.

Regards,

--TheEconomissst (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, I've blocked Economissst for 48 hours because they did not respond to your warning on their talk page and reinserted the material. I would have delayed had they not continued the edit-war, even though their response above is, in my view, inadequate, but they chose to reimpose their own view on the article. Feel free to take any action, including unblocking, if you disagree with my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You're too quick for me! I was just getting set to do the same block. I'm specially impressed that he identifies Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of the Americans, above. I wonder if he is up to date on the last few hundred years of our history. The King of France de jure is also a nice touch. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you're gonna weave a tale ... Besides, there are probably still some Brits who believe America is part of the Commonwealth. The rest of what he says is gibberish to me. I have trouble even understanding what he's trying to say, let alone whether it's historically accurate. Nixie9 is being generous and praising his knowledge (after, of course, reverting him). I suppose we'll get some more historical tidbits when Economissst's block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Followup - in case you missed it on AN - Carolina Herrera does not even hold the noble title TheEconomissst advocated so vigorously on so many pages. It was retracted in 1992. I guess this is why we insist on reliable references. I have learned a lot about titles though, and did add the appropriate citations to the article. Without the constant reverting, I managed to rewrite and reference it more substantially last night.--Nixie9 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW - Thank you both for interceding.--Nixie9 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI - TheEconomissst is back and already made substantial POV edits, however I have discussed the issues item by item here and am hopeful that they are willing to become collaborative, and self revert a bit.--Nixie9✉ 18:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I've semiprotected Carolina Herrera (fashion designer) due to the possible socking. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:CarthCarsen

Hi. You issued a 31 hour block for edit-warring here. This was his less-than-promising response. The editor in question then started editing as an IP. He acknowledged that here, most specifically here:

I was blocked for 31 hours though my reverts were all in the direction of more neutrality for the article, and though they fell within a 3RR exception, having an insufficient opportunity to point out the facts, and when the primary edit-warrer, Bonusballs, received no discipline. This was after Bonusballs et al. incorrectly characterized a slight majority vote as "consensus", etc. We need not drag it all up again. I am abandoning the CarthCarsen account because I no longer care for it. If building up a persona on Wikipedia takes kissing butt to the likes of the gang who succeeded in turning this page into an extremely biased argument for exoneration of Aaron Swartz, justifying it by saying that they were hurting at the time, I would prefer to edit anonymously to improve the encyclopedia and nothing more. 75.67.246.17 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Next, 75.67.246.17 was blocked for 12 hours.

The history of User talk:75.67.246.17 after that really has to be seen to be believed. as do 75.67.246.17's subsequent edits.

Please review as much as you can stomach, and then please consider whether your initial 31 hour block of User:CarthCarsen requires follow-up.

I've asked 75.67.246.17 to reverse his out-of-policy reverts of administrative action on the 75.67.246.17 talk page, before an admin has to do it for him.

At some point in the ongoing kerfuffle on the Swartz talk page, 75.67.246.17 suggested that my edit history be scrutinized. FWIW, I said I'd welcome it. I still would. I haven't behaved flawlessly, but I think I've behaved pretty well, given the provocation.

Please consider helping.

Thanks.
David in DC (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't been warring at the Aaron Swartz article since 24 January. If I had seen those IP edits at the time I might have blocked. His demeanor on the talk page is unlikely to win any awards. The stuff about 'reverting administrative actions' on his talk page doesn't make sense to me. Don't see what he did wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I may be wrong. Please tell me if I am. But I think most of the reversions by 75.67.246.17 here improperly mask administrative action applied to this IP address.

possible sock tag by Andy Dingley.
user reverts tag.
Admin Jonathunder, revert's user's reversion of possible sock tag. I'm assuming the admin was watching the page after issuing the 12-hour block.
User reverts admin's reversion.
User blanks edit war warning, "go fuck yourself" reply, and 12-hour block notice.
I revert blanking.
I revert more blanking.
User blanks warning, 12-hour block, "go fuck yourself" user response, and possible sock tag.
User announces intention to stop editing
I offer link to WP:RTV, hoping user will notice material about blanking talk pages.
Another editor (MarkBernstein) affected by user's edit-warring under two different accounts and incivility reverts user's blanking of history. Also adds explicit quotation from WP:RTV explaining why blanking of user page admin actions isn't even good practice under "right to vanish" let alone in case where editor announce he's going away and then doesn't.
User blanks Bernstein's edit.
David in DC (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If it was important to put up a sock tag, it could be done on the IP's user page. See WP:BLANKING for other rules. Since he is not trying to simultaneously use the IP and the registered account in a deceptive way, it is unlikely he would be sanctioned for WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
In short, I'm wrong. :).
Thank you for taking the time to educate me, gently. David in DC (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

an3-notice

Sorry about not filing the notice on my two (related) reports. Perhaps I'll get the hang of it, eventually. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The user Arcillaroja

Dear Wikipedian,

I am Marina. I am writing to you in order to clarify my fears. One of the users have been reverting my edits on Western Europe, as well as other European-related issues. I noticed, that his or her page is full of talk page entries related just to that. Would you mind to stay in touch with me? I read about vandalism on Wikipedia and I fear this is one of these cases... I hope, of course that I am wrong but... the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. By evidence I mean Arcilla's talk page as well as entry, and the fact that rather than move a critical comment from user page to a talk page, it was simply reverted. --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks to me that both of you are edit warring at Western Europe right now: each of you has restored one of your previously reverted changes with no comment except in edit summaries. This needs to go to the talk page. It is common to see people fighting over the definitions of various subsets of Europe, such as Western Europe. Also I need to observe that you are a brand new account (January 13) already getting into edit wars. I assume you are familiar with the Arbcom sanctions of WP:ARBEE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not aware of it. Thank you.--Martina Moreau (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not WP:BRD?

Hi Ed, sorry, finding it a little difficult to make sense of the explanation on Talk:Calicut. Can you perhaps expand (there please) on why it isn't a straight restore of the 18 November 2012‎ Kwamikagami move Kozhikode to Calicut? At least I can't work out why. Cheers, thanks for all your hard work. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for fixing that. I wonder if you have any input regarding the tightening of the wording proposal under WT:RM#Talk:Neve Şalom Synagogue? Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I'll add my thanks to that, especially for the speed of your response. Hopefully the proposed wording will make things clearer. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hula painted frog

Hello Ed. Could you look into Hula painted frog history. It appears that an editor removed a useful map, three times ([41] [42] [43]), restored by number of editors. I've suggested to repaint the Natural Earth provided boundaries to make GH appear as-if it is inside of Syria, this worked before with other Natural Earth based maps. However, I don't know if this pattern constitutes an edit warring. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ive opened a discussion at the talkpage, the first edit doesn't count as a revert so Ive made two reverts with more then two weeks in between, and I wont remove the map again. Agada, you also never edited the article before I did.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess technically there is no violation here. Though I still have doubts about the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. SD, would you be ready to follow FunkMonk suggestion here and self-revert meanwhile? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 05:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I should add that I don't think lack of a request for Admin action means it shouldn't be taken. And you are right, I'm far too involved. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

One option would be to expand the story at COIN, or have someone summarize it for ANI. So far the COIN discussion is merely a futile effort to reason with the person. A point-by-point summary of what the person did or didn't do would be preferable for explaining the matter to other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
ANI I think. And I really don't think I should do it - sorry, but if you could just do it briefly, you're uninvolved. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

data

see User_talk:Sean.hoyland#Data behind your ANI post. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's interesting. A few points:
  • The data probably needs footnotes to show how certain things were determined. E.g. how did you figure out which edits should be marked as sock edits?
  • Can you interpret the history since April 2012 to say whether the article was making 'progress' by some criterion?
  • Can you tell from your data whether more 'progress' was made during the periods of semiprotection? It looks like protection was applied three times.
  • Can you characterize the IP edits. How often did IPs make changes that were not vandalism, not socking, not obviously POV, and seemed to be well-intentioned. This might help determine if long-term semiprotection should be considered.
Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll have a look at these points. Footnotes/sock identification etc and a more detailed breakdown of the IP edits should be possible (although see my comment here about Special:Contributions/SquidooSepul and the ineffectiveness of semi-protection). I'll see if there is obvious uncontroversial evidence of progress but I'm keen to keep decisions about the data as deterministic/repeatable as possible. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know I'm still working on this although I've hit some snags that complicate things (e.g. User_talk:Pluto2012#1948_Arab.E2.80.93Israeli_War). I'm including talk page edits over the same period too for a fuller picture. I would like do the same kind of analysis on a couple of other articles in the topic area to get a broader overview. I'm not sure whether 1948 Arab–Israeli War is atypical/exceptionally prone to disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, see below. I haven't had much free time for Wikipedia recently so it took a while.

As before, you can view it with Excel (although it will reformat the results graphs, whereas the PDFs match OpenOffice). I've included details for the socks and non-sock IPs as background information for the categorization. I've also tried to look at differences between semi-protected and unprotected periods. I had a go at subjectively classifying the 60 59 edits by non-sock IPs to break them down into 3 sets, vandalism, inconsequential/minor fixes etc and improvement, but only for the article data, not the talk page data. Identifying vandalism was easy, whereas the difference between inconsequential/minor fixes etc and improvement was fuzzy and there would probably be slightly different results if I or anyone else repeated it. I haven't been able to see whether the article was making 'progress'. The diff between the start and end date contains too many changes for me to be able to say anything meaningful about that. I haven't had a chance to do something similar for a few more ARBPIA articles to get a broader view. I still think that would be useful but my time is a bit limited at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a start at looking at your material. A significant point may be that 1948 Arab-Israeli war was placed under PC2 protection on 11 January, as a result of the ANI thread that you started. This may have a dramatic effect on sock editing, because it will be tough for socks to ever get the 'reviewer' user right. Also there are only a few reviewers, apparently between 1,000 and 2,000. (I can't find the actual number). It will be interesting to see if PC2 makes the overall editing better or worse. Better, due to lack of socks, or worse, because it raises the barrier for people who might otherwise want to contribute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
When articles are protected like this, socks will just go elsewhere. The topic banned editors who sock in ARBPIA aren't going to stop and SPI reporting doesn't stop them. The sample from this particular article includes AndresHerutJaim, Lutrinae and NoCal100 socks. All three of those topic banned editors are active much of the time in the topic area. Special:Contributions/190.16.238.155 is AndresHerutJaim from yesterday, Lutrinae is probably currently active as an editor I won't name as there isn't enough evidence for an SPI (or at least there isn't enough time to look at it properly) and NoCal100 is always around, usually with multiple active accounts, participating in AfDs, at RSN, following editors in the topic area etc (see User:Sean.hoyland/socks for blocked accounts but there will certainly be many more that haven't been blocked). Yes, it will be interesting to see the effects of PC2. What might happen is article development slowing down (assuming it was happening in the first place). I think a large proportion of edits in the topic area are reactive, made in response to socking and POV pushing, rather than related to actual article development and building an encyclopedia. The disruption probably reminds editors that they have an article watchlisted and makes it more likely that they will edit something else in the article. Perhaps the 1RR restriction has a similar side effect of speeding up article development because it only restricts the actions of individuals rather than forcing the entire set of editors involved in a dispute to follow the D part of WP:BRD once the BR parts have happened i.e. edit wars attract editors, and once editors are there, other things in the article get fixed by people who know how to fly below the 1RR restriction. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought. If the sock pest can be resolved with PC2, but the collateral damage is a serious risk to article development, why not put in place a message notifying experienced editors that these pages are now out of the nuisance zone, with a request to review the page, makes its sources uniform, provide better sources, and drive it to better quality? To know that one can work in peace is a great incentive to actually working intensely on article improvement.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

<- Ed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive#31_January_2013 for interest. I think it demonstrates that PC2 is going to be ineffective in ARBPIA without other measures being in place. It's not a surprising result I suppose given that a reviewer is unlikely to be familiar with topic banned users and their sockpuppetry behavior, and many, if not most, edits by topic banned users are not unreasonable. I have data and results for a couple more articles in ARBPIA now, 2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing and Operation Damocles. I'll put them online when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you following

Talk:Roza Bal as well?. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why, o why did I click on that link? :-( KillerChihuahua 17:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
If this weren't so serious, it would have its funny aspects. If the person who opened Talk:Roza Bal#Page improvements chooses to revert the article again some admin action should be considered. The 'supporting relics' are specially impressive. Finding a rosary on the site proves that Jesus was in India. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm biting my tongue... but I'm sure you're thinking the same things I am and I don't need to spell it out. KillerChihuahua 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And after checking contribs and reading the talk page of User:SuzanneOlsson, I've blocked her a week for disruptive editing, including edit warring to include unsourced or improperly sourced content. KillerChihuahua 18:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Obviously I agree with your decision, since SuzanneOlsson in fact did continue to revert after my final warning. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And from her response, I'm not optimistic that anything will change after the block. Either a topic ban or something more drastic will probably be required. She just doesn't get it or is so dedicated to her quest she's just going to ignore anyone who disagrees with her. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It's my guess that admins will not permit a continuation of her old pattern once the block has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, who in their right mind would be editing Wikipedia on the same day they're having a memorial service for their recently-deceased son? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

AE discussion

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you not tell me that I was still allowed to edit articles pertaining to Israel and Jewish history? My edit at Beersheba was a mistake on my part, and one that I have no intention of repeating. However, the rest of the accusations filed against me are dubious, at best. Needless to say, I am becoming frustrated not only with my inability to find a mentor, but to contribute to these topics in a manner that satisfies everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Evildoer187

Evildoer187 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your edits at Jewish diaspora raise questions of WP:COMPETENCE. Either you don't understand Wikipedia policy, or you are not following it. If your only interest is in controversial questions concerning Judaism, I don't think your current editing is at a level where it is wise to participate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
So then what should I do? It is clear that I don't have a firm grasp on Wikipedia policy, which is why I continue to search for a mentor. I have not found one yet.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for blocking the irritating IP vandal who attacked my talk page! Arctic Kangaroo 05:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

AN3 followup

A couple of weeks ago, I brought what appeared to me to be a flawless case of edit warring, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:NOTTHERAPY to the AN3 noticeboard and was rebuffed.  I have twice since asked SOV to provide a third opinion, but he is involved in a case with ArbCom that needs his full attention, so that particular issue remains on the back burner.  Meanwhile, as per the first diff, you made a determination regarding a WP:NPA aspect of the case to hat the AN3 discussion.  In the AN3 discussion, the editor laid the groundwork so that any contact I make with him will result in a claim that I should have known that any contact would result in a visit to ANI.  When you hatted the discussion, you in effect closed the door to my being able to discuss anything with this editor.  My position remains that discussion on Wikipedia is required.  The editor refuses to take down an attack on his talk page.  Meanwhile the editor seems to have been emboldened by not having received an AN3 warning as shown in these diffs: "oily snarkers", "belligerent hysteria", "revenge AfD nominations", "unforgiving vindictiveness with a veneer of smug pseudo-polite baiting", "you have intentionally overlooked".  Is there anything that you can do about this situation, such as issuing a warning?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Pursuing a dispute with User:Reyk here on my talk page is unlikely to have any useful result. An WP:RFC about Template:Arguments is something you might consider. That is the issue that brought you to AN3 in the first place. As Qwyrxian noted in his AN3 closure, "it is up to Unscintillating to establish that there has been a change in consensus to remove the link." I'm not pleased with the comments by Reyk that you quoted above. If he continues to talk like that there could be repercussions. For some reason people are allowed to talk like sailors on noticeboards. The alternative would be issuing a WP:NPA block every two seconds. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I tried to make it clear that I was not here to discuss the AN3 case.  Now I'm more confused than when I came in here.  You are the admin who hatted the discussion.  Why should I talk to anyone else about the effects of the hatting?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to see any grounds for appealing the hatting. If you continue to have a grievance against Reyk that can be briefly explained to admins, take it to ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
That is interesting that you put it in terms of me having a grievance with the other editor.  It is the community that has or should have the grievance, as stated in our policies, and I am a member of the community.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Your complaint was rejected by the 3RR closer. He was not persuaded that you had a 'flawless case of edit warring, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTTHERAPY.' He did have some suggestions of what you could do next to solve the underlying dispute: "..at this point it is up to Unscintillating to establish that there has been a change in consensus to remove the link. If one cannot be reached among the two editors themselves, Unscintillating should pursue dispute resolution, with WP:3O probably being a good first step.." His comment was from January 8, and it is now January 30. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the diff of the hatting, dated Jan 11.  If I read carefully, your previous post states that attending to the closing could "solve the underlying dispute", but the 3O will only address whether or not one specific essay belongs on Template:arguments.  This is not a discussion with the closing administrator about the AN3 closing.  Four of the five diffs I provided were not from a noticeboard.  There is no movement regarding the attack on the talk page.  ANI is not what is needed, what is needed is a warning from an administrator, and you are the administrator whose hatting has created the present status.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want some action taken about Reyk's comments about you that he made in this version of his talk page on January 6, why don't you take it to ANI. I see that you already asked King of Hearts in this section. KoH agreed with you that the statement was an attack, but there was no admin action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
KoH received a "request for opinion" and KoH issued an opinion.  I believe that this was a third opinion.  I am not aware that KoH took on any role as an administrator, but if you want I can ask.  Also, if you want, I can ask for a third opinion regarding your role as a hatting administrator.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Since you are paying little attention to any of my suggestions, why don't you appeal whatever you think I did to any venue of your choice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I expect that your gentle suggestions of other venues are based on long experience, but in this case I have not found them helpful.  Without your discussion, I do not know what your viewpoint is of the role of a hatting administrator when the action has had the effect of creating an interaction ban.  Back to my previous question in regard to the KoH request for opinion...I am not aware that KoH took on any role as an administrator.  I find your statement that "there was no admin action taken" to open a door that KoH might have taken an admin role, such that any follow up regarding the opinion does not belong here.  Please clarify or agree to my offer to review the question with KoH.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Your response that I might have brought an issue to you that belonged in the lap of another administrator might be that your thoughts are going to "forum shopping".  There is no one better able to resolve this issue of your meaning than you.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Please take this elsewhere. I feel that I've already given an adequate answer above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Your overall answer appears to require that I accept the long-term effects of your hatting without you accepting any role.  You have been unwilling to discuss it here, declined to answer an offer to review your role with a mutually-agreeable third party, and have not issued any rulings.  So far, you will only accept me leaving unilaterally for another forum, which seems to have two interesting effects, those being that you are relieved of responsibility for being the hatting administrator, and that I am engaging in forum shopping.  I believe that I'm already at the proper forum.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

IP edits

Sorry to bother you. Would you mind semi-protecting Baptist successionism‎ as you did Baptists the other day? The same IP sock of a blocked user had been editing on that article, too, and now some other IPs have been making the same unexplained reverts. Thank you! Novaseminary (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for a month based on their unwillingness to defer to the verdict of the talk page. Do you know who the sockmaster is? EdJohnston (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
At the very least some of them had been User:Mark Osgatharp on Baptists and Baptist sucessionism, by his own admission. You had noted he admitted as much at on the Baptists talk page User_talk:Mark_Osgatharp#January_2013, and his admission and IPs seem to apply to the Baptist sucessionism article, too. The new IPs involved have not left edit summaries and don't have any substantial edit history to compare, so I don't know if it is him or meatpuppeting or something else. Thanks for helping with this. Novaseminary (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Note

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:The 47 Ronin

Thanks for the messages. I understand current practices. I just didn't notice that there were a (relatively small) number of articles whose redirects I broke. However, I don't think it's necessary for me to open a formal move request, since I now understand my error, and no one will challenge this move on anything other than technical grounds. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, there is one user who has been going around opposing me on numerous move requests, and got indefinitely blocked for that, but has apparently found a way around the block. That is why, when I have an uncontroversial move, I am inclined to just move the page myself rather than draw any attention to it: having one guy give a long spiel about how the page should not be moved tends to deter people from making the obvious decision that the article should be moved. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Why not ask Mysterious Island if he is OK with this? If not, a move discussion should take place. It seems unlikely that Mysterious Island is a sock of the other guy. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Done! MI made no objection to redoing the move properly, so I went ahead and did it.
Out of curiosity, though, is it really Wikipedia policy to undo the entire move for the technical reason that the redirect was incorrectly changed? Wouldn't it have been better to, in the short run, revert my switching of the redirect location, and then telling me? This wouldn't require an admin, and would have been more constructive and less troublesome overall.
elvenscout742 (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
At first sight, Mysterious Island seemed to want The 47 Ronin (1941 film) to be the primary meaning. If he believed that, then his views and your views would be incompatible. Only after a lengthy discussion did it emerge that his only concern was the redirects being wrong. That problem was easy to fix. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah okay. But for clarity, if MI only opposed my move for technical reasons, the correct policy move would have been to undo my switching of the redirects, right? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the phrase 'opposing only for technical reasons'. It does not seem to match up with any concept of our current policy. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I mean, in the future, if I notice someone has made a poorly formatted move, and change the location of the redirect, and I don't care about the substance of the move either way, should I post it on technical moves, or just revert the redirect change and contact the user responsible? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Communication is good, and fixing the redirects is (usually) not much work. Undoing the move seems like overkill. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationalism

All right man, let discuss it. Can you tell me how tag of one country (Hungary) is related to another country (Serbia)? It does not look idiotic to you? For example, one can post tag WP Venezuela on page Talk:History of India and then you will accuse for nationalism people who wish to remove wrong tag? Can you tell me why you think that I have no good faith? My only goal is to make page accurate and NPOV. Baća bez gaća (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Also tell me this: if someone tell you that something is POV, I assume that you should try to examine that problem to see how to make that NPOV. Neutral approach is policy of Wikipedia, right? I only object to POV pushing and yet you accuse only me for nationalism. Have you ever considered that tag WP Hungary was placed to that page because of nationalism of user which placed such tag? Baća bez gaća (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
And let me answer some accusations of Peacemaker67: Yes, I am one of IP users, but please tell me what I done wrong? You locked the page and there was a Wikipedia message that I can edit that page if I register account, wait 4 days and have 10 edits. I only followed that guideline. Is there a rule that says that I should not do that? If I am not allowed to do that then why there is a message which gives advise to people to do that? Baća bez gaća (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Re Warning as per filing by MyLeftNut

I'd point out that nything offered by MyLeftNut should be taken with a truckload of salt. Signs point to MyLeftNut being one a few socks of Wattlebird. If you take a look at the ordering in AN3, you will note that Wattlebird is blocked as per a complaint by AdamDeanHall. Less than an hour later, MyLeftNut comes out of the woodwork and files an identical complaint against ADH and Keshe Reye, andother user involved in a heated editwar in 666 Park Avenue. Lord Roem noticed the similarities in timing and posting and filed the SPI. I have no 'side' in the matter, save for keeping socks from pushing their preferred edit on the Wiki. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, MyLeftNut is probably a sock of Wattlebird. If Wattlebird (talk · contribs) returns to editing people should keep an eye on his activities. There has been furious warring at 666 Park Avenue that may seem out of proportion to the issues involved. Most people working there seem to have good intentions even though they go way over the top. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I completely agree, which is why I stayed out of any editing of the article. I only became involved when I heard about what they were arguing about. FB? Really. it was too sad. and to lick the sides of an indef block over it seems pathetic. Btw, how come B hasn't been definitively ruled one way or the other as a source? To me, it seems too pliable a medium to fulfill RS… - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

IP complaining about an editor's username

I don't know if you're watching the page but you might remember the issue around living members of the Tolkien family and a certain Mr. Carrie. At Talk:Tolkien family, an IP from Canada has now been complaining that Dogdazed (talk · contribs) assumed his Twitter user name which the IP thinks is an "outrageous and blatant misrepresentation of me". See also User talk:Dogdazed. Legal representatives have been mentioned so I'm thinking of WP:NLT. Apart from monitoring the article, is there anything we should do right now? De728631 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This IP from Canada is complaining bitterly about Dogdazed (talk · contribs), an account which began editing in June 2010. OrangeMike has now deleted Dogdazed's user talk page as a G10 attack page, which is unusual because the attack was placed there by the above IP. OrangeMike has also indefinitely blocked the IP for making legal threats. It is plausible that the IP could be the owner of the Twitter handle - a few details check out. He has no claim to a monopoly of the name on the internet, which his solicitors will hopefully be able to tell him. He also seems to have a regular WP account which has been inactive since 2010. Dogdazed seems to be a defender of the Tolkien family, but he has not edited since 2010. The IP is presumably not Christopher Carrie, and the Twitter guy has a different name. Have you seen a website that begins with 'jtolkien' and ends with '.com'? Conceivably we could block User:Dogdazed as an impersonation account, but that's a stretch. Can't think of anything else to do. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If there were any justice in the world, I'd have KillerChihuahua at Yahoo and at Gmail. Alas, I have neither. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing. You should get your solicitors working on it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ha, I'm too busy here and irl to bother, even if I were a (slightly nutty) litigious sort (with delusions). But I've thought of emailing them and asking how attached they are to the address. On your edit summary: I noes! the world is full of us!!! KillerChihuahua 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
That pretty much sums up my thoughts. Actually I remember said website from the dispute we had over here but imho it deserves no further attention. In other news there's also a website about a Dog that is Dazed – so much about unique names. I was thinking about WP:IMPERSONATE but I found that bit far-fetched as well. Let's get back to business as usual. De728631 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep...I'm pretty pissed that someone once registered BMW as a username; it's what a lot of my online stuff goes by. How popular was Twitter 2 years ago when the current dogdazed made that talkpage post? When does the IP claim that they made that post? Who usurps who? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you should see your solicitor; you surely have a case against the car manufacturer. KillerChihuahua 18:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra sock back from holiday

Hi Ed, just letting you know that the self-styled "Cassandra" sock has made a reappearance today after a couple of months of inactivity. Not sure if it's worth any action yet with just one edit in the style of the old vexatious pattern but I'll keep you posted if the behaviour continues. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you find the links to where this was discussed before? If it's going to continue, we should open an SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Here are my past blocks with the name 'Cassandra' in them:
  • 20:13, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.12.99.105 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Abusing multiple accounts: Cassandra, the Scots language POV warrior. There was a past ANI discussion (search for 'Cassandra'))
  • 20:01, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Continued unhelpful edits. Scots language POV warrior. See log entry for my previous block of this range)
In terms of further action, a reblock of 92.5.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two months might be considered. Here are the rangecontribs from the /19. Might be too large to block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
As well as the ANI discussion you've linked above it was discussed on your talk page here and here. Was that what you wanted? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that helps. If an SPI gets opened, the master could be shown as 92.5.15.139 (talk · contribs). We already have Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll keep an eye on any developments. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
So far there is only one edit in 2013 from this range. Not enough yet to bother with an SPI, I think. But keep an eye out for more edits. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I quite agree. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what is to be done with this...

Hi Ed, you were one of the last ones to interact with Pottinger's_cats (talk · contribs) regarding fringe theories, and so (for lack of any better reason) I'm bringing this to your attention. Could you please check out Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)#counter_to_this_article? It appears to be justification of an individual editor's beliefs in certain conspiracy theories. Should it be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM? I can't tell what article improvement is being suggested by it. Appreciate your attention... Zad68 20:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding -- there are probably WP:CPVIO problems with it, as I see large chunks of it repeated elsewhere online... Zad68 20:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The 3RR report was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive205#User:Pottinger's cats reported by Yobol (talk) (Result: Warned). The gigantic post by Pottinger's cats at Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)#counter to this article is worrisome. Maybe you can request him to either shorten it to 500 words, or to bracket it with {{hat}} and {{hab}} templates so it takes up less room on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
So requested here, see what happens... Zad68 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: You are reverting an article which is covered by Arbcom sanctions

I would like some clarification. Is there a reason why I'm getting a warning but KillerChihuahua (talk) is not? So it's okay for him to remove huge sections of the Race and Intelligence thread with no consensus or discussion? But I get a warning simply for reverting these huge deletions that have been the collective work of several editors from all different positions that worked together to try to create a NPOV article? Why do I need a consensus to restore relevant content, that clearly meets WP:Verifiability, but he doesn't need any to remove huge chunks of the article as he sees fit?

I understand there have been problems in the past by some users that were POV pushing but it seems POV pushing done by those that support the hereditarian position are treated very differently than the POV pushing done by those that support the environmentalist position. One group is quickly banned and silenced, the other isn't. And I certainly agree with banning those that repeatedly disrupt and POV push, I just wish there was consistency and the same standards are across the board. And to clarify, I don't support either group, this article should be as neutral as possible and give appropriate due weight to each position in a very sensitive and difficult article. I have made past reverts on users that were POV pushing the hereditarian view. Which was apparently okay and I received no warning for. But if I revert on users that are POV pushing the environmentalist view I get a warning. There appears to be a clear double standard here. It would be very difficult to get this article to NPOV if one group is treated differently than the other. I'm hoping administrators can show more fairness and judgement. BlackHades (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer for Ed, but if the situation were reversed, I'd let you know about the ArbCom sanctions, and I wouldn't tell Ed: he's been here since May 2006 and has 33,320 edits; he's an admin; he's contributed to the WP:ARBR&I page. I've been here since June 2004 and I have 31,471 edits and I'm an admin; Ed knows I'm aware of WP:ARBR&I. In contrast, you have 301 edits (and had less than 300 when Ed posted to your talk page). He would naturally be concerned that you might not know about the ArbCom case. Admins don't tell people who already know; they tell people who might not be aware. It's meant to be helpful to you; you could, in all innocence, violate a sanction if you weren't made aware of it. Ed's post to you should be taken in that fashion; trust that he was seeking to inform you. Regarding content, that should be discussed on the article talk page and not here. KillerChihuahua 02:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Mercedes F1 W04 move

Hi Ed,

I don't have any objections to your moving the Mercedes F1 W04 page. I know I argued quite vehemently against it, but truth be told, most of those arguments were made because I felt another user was letting his ego influence his editing - based on his behaviour and some of the things he was saying elsewhere, I got the distinct impression that it was more important to him that his edits got accepted rather than having the right edits accepted. I just wanted the argument to run its full course to be certain that the right edits were being made. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's helpful to know that you don't oppose the result. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned??

Is not Verman1 indefinitely banned[44] from any articles or talk pages that have to do with Wikipedia:AA2?? [45],[46],[47],[48] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've invited Verman1 to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits regarding AA

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#Indefinitely banned??. In your AfD vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karabakh Council you specifically mention 'propaganda'. I assume you are thinking, 'propaganda about the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict.' It looks to me that you are on the edge of a block for violating your WP:ARBAA2 topic ban. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

But I did not make any edits on article. I think my topic ban is stretched to articles and talk pages. I don't see any violation in my edits. --Verman1 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Check the log of WP:ARBAA2:

Verman1 (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from the topic of the AA dispute on both articles and talk pages per this AE result. EdJohnston (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

–EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


You have new message/s You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Fastfromlight

Hi Ed - I see you told Fastfromlight about my AN3 report. His response was a 5th revert[49]. Still no other edits and no action at AN3. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

See the AN3 report for the follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Blocked as a sock in any case. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for handling Template:911ct

I should have been doubly specific and requested that its talk page be moved also, please. Do I need to make a separate request or are you able to handle that with this message to you? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Now done. I should have caught that myself. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

3 RR by Esoglou on the East West Schism

Esoglou just can't leave my contributions alone. 1[50] 2[51] 3 [52] 3rr. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou added the material once to East–West Schism on 12 February and then reverted twice. You yourself have also reverted twice. This doesn't break WP:3RR. I'm not planning to take any admin action on this. The question could be submitted to a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Users can remove messages from their own talk

Hello Asher196. Please consider undoing your recent edit here. User:Let Me Eat Cake is allowed to remove notices from their own page, with very few exceptions. See WP:BLANKING. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I was just tweaking him a little because he called me an idiot.--Asher196 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

thx

thank you Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh crap, now I messed it up... Semitic peopl... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

67.166.99.91

Hello, could you or another administrator do something about that user? I've warned him three times about his/her vandalism on the page 20th Television and Trivialist reverted the user's vandal edits on the Sony Pictures Entertainment page. You can view them under the history pages if you like. King Shadeed 20:00, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

User has not edited since 11 February. Let me know if this continues. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Just an FYI, although I'm sure you'll notice it yourself, Eaglestorm has reverted your edit at his talk page with the edit summary "will not dignify response".[53] I've noted this at the AN3 report.[54] --AussieLegend (✉) 09:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

He's now been blocked for 48 hours, so there's no need to follow this up. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

31.185.177.229

Hello Mr. Johnston. The user above in the subject keeps vandalizing the page List of MGM Television shows after Fraggle81 and I warned the user about his/her persistent vandalism on the page. Can you please take care of the user? Thank you. King Shadeed 12:36, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected List of MGM Television shows. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Appreciate it. King Shadeed 14:07, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Request re: Mass Killings

I've made a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Article_namespace regarding Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#North_Korea. The consensus seems pretty straightforward (!vote 5 supports to 2 opposes) other than the usual walls of text from the usual source. I'll also inform User:Sandstein and hopefully we can start making some progress on the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you have any suggestions on what procedures should be used for the Mass Killings article. We have a consensus and you know how difficult it has been to move forward on that article. It's been 10 days since I asked for a close and it looks like it will take another 2-3 weeks at the pace they are going through other articles. Perhaps we could get the full protection lifted and I could close the question and put the single paragraph in myself (subject to all the penalties of the original special restrictions - which I'm sure would not kick in). Any help appreciated. 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

About the closing of the edit warring report on Kontoreg...

I noticed that you have closed the edit warring report I made on Kontoreg, due to him/her being on vacation. That is understandable, but I am somewhat confused as to what it means. Does this mean that it will be reopened when Kontoreg returns? Does it mean that it will have to be re-reported then? Does it mean that it will need to be re-reported if Kontoreg continues, when he/she returns? ...or something else?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

See the warning that was left at User talk:Kontoreg. If problems resume after his vacation, you can file a new report at WP:AN3 and link to the old one. We expect that Kontoreg will participate in discussions and will wait to convince others. Admins won't do anything further until we see what happens then. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I see. Now I know what the situation is, and what to do (depending on what happens). Thank you for the explanation.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Emergent

Hopefully you don't mind me volunteering you :-D

Because I am myself a PR person, I prefer to avoid Request Edits, but there were about 20 piled up and nobody processing them, so I went through them around the time they posted. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this issue is now closed. Since it was somewhat contentious, I'll let someone else take his next Request Edit if he makes one. I would prefer to avoid these all-together anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Moon landing conspiracy theories

FYI, User:91.145.38.53 restored discussion on the talk page again, started a new section to add to it, and is now being grossly uncivil in addition. I can file at ANI or ARV if you're away for the night, but you were the last admin to give a warning on his talk page, so I figured I'd run it by you first. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The ip is now using his talk page for threats and insults (see here). I'm also concerned that he will continue disruption once auto unblocked tomorrow. Extending the block for PA might help avoid that; he'll probably get tired in a week if no one posts to his page. What do you think? I was going to ask for advice on ANI, but there's no rush today, so I thought you might like to handle it personally. Either way. Thanks,   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you're out for the night, so I asked on ANI that someone step in. (I mentioned your name there, FYI) Anyway, I appreciate your help. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

IP ‎173.161.92.140 and Bob Uecker

Hi, EdJohnston. I see that Bob Uecker is semi'd again. In looking at the article's history I see that, while more than one IP has been involved in the repeated removals of the image, one of them—173.161.92.140—is obviously a static IP and has been on this mysterious crusade for years. Most recently, they edited an archived noticeboard page. I warned them for today's image removal, which someone else fixed before you protected the article. I was tempted to revert the archive change but will leave it for you to decide. (I'm not really here this week.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed this, and told the IP how they can file a complaint by email if they think they are the owner of a copyrighted work that we are using without proper clearance. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
If they can't explain the issue coherently in a plethora of talk page comments, noticeboard posts, and edit summaries, I don't imagine they'll do any better in an email. Anyway, thanks for following up. Rivertorch (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Need clarification on sources of historical writing

Hello! I wanted to clarify some important doubts regarding the works of historians & authors on religion & ethnic communities. For example, if it's about events that happened in the 13th century, the only eyewitness documents of these events would be manuscripts, memoirs/diaries, autobiographies and interviews conducted on the witnesses. The historians may atleast need a summary of an eyewitness report that has survived. In other cases, the author must be a direct witness.
However, some historians come up with their own theories based on hearsay or assertions made by people, which are often unreliable. They don't seem to be quoting any eyewitness reports(like the ones mentioned before). Even if there are a 100 sources available to support these "primary sources that are based on hearsay & assumptions" without witness reports from those years, or without a proper methodology and development of historical facts, they're all unreliable sources of information, aren't they? Please clarify. Hari7478 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You're asking a general question about how historians do their work. Generally we rely on what recent historians have written in reliable publications. That gives the job of interpreting the old primary sources to them, not to Wikipedia editors. If you have a question about a particular source, you can ask for advice at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I realize that. But what if the historians haven't acknowledged the old primary sources in their work? In that case, is it assumed that they're coming up with their own theories? Would that be a valid argument at the reliable sources notice board? Hari7478 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not up to you to correct the historians, unless you intend to get your own rebuttal published in a reliable journal. If you do a literature search you may find a larger number of historians who have considered the issue. When the opinions of historians differ, we are allowed to reflect the divergence in our own summary. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:SuzanneOlsson

Thanks for that, I knew I had to log it somewhere but couldn't remember where (my first ever topic ban so hopefully only a minor trouting...) GiantSnowman 15:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Israel lobby article

Although I am aware of the topic ban, I feel that I have to speak out on one article that I have just stumbled across. Needless to say, I am frightened that such an article even exists on Wikipedia. It is an antisemitic trope, made even more insulting by the fact that it is (evidently) approved by what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. I have not edited the article personally, nor have I used its talk page. But I would like to ask that someone with even a modicum of sensitivity or knowledge on the history of antisemitism revise/rephrase the article so that it does not callously dig up ancient libels against us. This is completely unacceptable.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please continue to avoid articles that fall under your I/P topic ban. Encouraging other people to make edits at your direction also violates the ban. You appear to be very easily shocked. If Wikipedia can't cover ordinary political activities in a neutral manner, that would reduce our scope substantially. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Imagine if you were black and one day you encountered an article entitled "The Criminal Proclivities of Black People". You would be outraged, as I am now. So please don't tell me that I'm overreacting. What can I do to prove that I am fit to edit those articles again,anyway?Evildoer187 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
After a reasonable time, you can appeal your topic ban at WP:AE, using {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Your appeal would be more persuasive if you can point to productive editing in other areas that occurred during your ban from I/P. For instance, some articles that you improved or sources that you added. It would help if you can show the I/P topic doesn't get you upset any more. Just now you've become very shocked about an article about UK politics which has existed for several years, has mainstream sources and has never been nominated for deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the reasons I am here is to try and maintain a neutral point of view on Arab-Israeli conflict articles specifically. I am, and remain, concerned that partisan viewpoints are being smuggled into otherwise balanced articles. As I type this, it's already happening on several Wikipedia pages. I would like to request that I be a part of the Countering Systemic Bias project, perhaps with some tutoring from a mentor. I have not yet found one, although I have been waiting.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Snackathon

EdJohnston, User:Snackathon has left a note for you on his talk page (and I wanted to pass it on). By chance I had Snackathon on my watchlist from the other day. His case overlapped with ours the other day (all of us who were on DS's list) as I noticed that DS had brought sockpuppet charges against Snackathon after he disagreed with DS (very suspicious to me). Anyway, I'm not so much following Snackathon's edits but I'm seeing a general pattern of people gaming the system, including admin rules, for their content biases. Anyway, Snackathon made a very interesting comment here that also concerned an article that I have been working on and that DS also seems to want to edit war on. I think it's worth reading, even though the report (eek!) doesn't look to good for him. Still, he might have been goaded into reverts by the gang. Crtew (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Snackathon's contribution history is only a single page, and most of it is on a very contentious article. It is not a surprise when somebody joins Wikipedia and immediately goes into battle that there could be socking concerns. If the person also seems to not pay attention to 3RR warnings it suggests they don't have much invested in the account (i.e. they will get a new account in five minutes if they want to). In this case it looks like the evidence was insufficient and the SPI will close with no action. If Snackathon stays around for a while and builds up a normal editing record then everything should be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I am very new to this "contentious" frontier zone of WP and I almost feel like I need retraining after what I've seen! Amazing what people do in this territory. Thanks, Crtew (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration enforcement

Thanks for letting me know that you discussed my edits. I have just replied to you there. Best, Konullu (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines

Has DS a received warning at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan? I have noticed you have given them out. I also noticed that you are an administrator and an uninvolved editor. I would request that you consider warning him based on his actions, his misuse of the template, and edit warring like behavior. Crtew (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at User talk:CarrieVS#Thanx. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Am we allowed to take ourselves off this listing? Since I was never warned, I didn't even know about these special isles of Wikipedia and the whole thing was done incorrectly, it doesn't seem fair. Several of us had the same concern, which was while we deleted ourselves when DS reversed my strikethrough. Crtew (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
If people try to take themselves off the list themselves they may be blocked, so I don't advise that. Go to an admin noticeboard before trying that, or wait for the current informal discussions to reach a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
At the moment I'm looking at RFC/U, AN/I and AE, and I'm not really sure which to file. I've never done this before and it's a little daunting. However, several people have told me they had similar bad experienced after I posted my own, which makes me think and RFC/U would be appropriate. You say "if he continues" for the AE. Which would you suggest I work on? Crtew (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Another admin has now removed DS's warnings from the WP:ARBIPA log, including your warning. If DS won't accept this result, it will probably go to WP:Arbitration enforcement. AE can issue bans of all kinds if it seems they are necessary. For example, if someone appeared to be using poor judgment when giving warnings about Discretionary sanctions they could be banned from issuing such warnings. Why not let the issue settle down for a while. A word to the wise may be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll take your advice. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What should I brace myself for?

Read this very terse conversation. Darkness Shines says that next time he is going to file an AE case (which is dismissed if the guy had not been given notification) and then he will point to the "fiasco" (ensuing the warning he gave me while being involved in an issue and pretending to be an uninvolved administrator without clearly telling me the reason for leaving the warning).

Just as a precautionary measure I am asking this while it's still a hot issue, what should I do if such a situation arises? I am starting to feel picked on and harassed by DS! Arbitration Enforcement because of a minor content dispute which has barely received any outside input even after my repeated tries (along the lines of WP:BRD) at the ORN and talk?? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No comment at this time. Wait and see. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

I've been blocked for violating the 3RR. Then I proved that I haven't violated the 3RR. Then the admins changed the charges. Wouldn't it be the case of unblocking me, giving me a chance to defend myself from the new charges and then blocking me again if that was the case? It's like locking someone up for murder, then after it is proven he wasn't the suspect, the charges are changed to robbery, but he is kept in jail without any trial. And it seems that no admin have actually read the ANEW. Isn't it like a judge just sleeping during the whole trial and then making a decision based on a shallow notion of the case? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This was more like a case of a a guy with a couple of courses in common law trying to represent himself in Louisiana's civil law courts. A number of well-read admins all chimed in on your unblock - obviously they're not the ones who are wrong. Ed even offered to lift your block, but you acted like a jerk to him. So yes - "admin abuse" usually means someone is abusing admins again (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Isn't calling me a jerk a violation of WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA? Not that I'm offended, but I've never lowered to that level and still have been accused of violating WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I commented on your edits, not you as an editor. You'll hopefully learn to read the very policies you're trying to quote (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Really? If I say you are acting like a jerk, I'm commenting on your edits, not you as an editor? And that wouldn't be a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? Interesting how justice isn't blind here in WP. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/EW

Hi. Could you please have a look at this report at WP:AN/EW: [55] It appears that there have been no admins watching that page for quite some time. Thanks. Regards, Grandmaster 22:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore the above, it has been resolved. Thanks. Grandmaster 00:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Milogardner

Milogardner (talk · contribs) is "banned from editing on the topic of Egyptian mathematics, broadly construed, including talk pages"[56]. Maybe this doesn't include his talk page, but see the revision history of Talk:Egyptian mathematics[57]. I was involved in the RfC so I probably shouldn't take action, but what's the best thing to do about this flagrant violation? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Shall I ask elsewhere? Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Now warned. Sorry I overlooked your request. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Astronomer28

You state here that User:Astronomer28 was blocked for 24 hrs, however it appears that the editor is not blocked. Error somewhere? Vsmith (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've also increased the block on User:Mieszko 8 to 48 hours for block evasion on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus. Vsmith (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Two weeks now, see 109.77.151.81 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
GiantSnowman has also threatened to indef him should this IP socking continue: [58]. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Isabel dos Santos

Hi EdJohnston, many thanks for your contribution. I have changed that now to the reference of the Guardian article. Cruks (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

Hi, I was reported for copyright violations concerning changes to the article on the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve. It wasn't a copyright violation, as the article was cited at the bottom. Additional changes were made to make this more clear. All content information is added from an academically-sourced article written by a Ph.D, Dr. Jerry Bergman.--Twainmaned (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking excessively long quotes from copyrighted works is not allowed, even if you cite where you got it. See Fair use#Amount and substantiality. Using *ideas* published elsewhere does not violate copyright, so generally you should summarize the source in your own words rather than taking long quotes from it. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Malayalam cinema, South Indian film industry

I have replied on the admin noticeboard WP:AN3#User:Prathambhu reported by User:Induzcreed (Result: ). Please let me know if there is anything more that is mandatory that I still have to do. Thanks, Best Prathambhu (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Shameless or not?

Hi Ed, I'm getting in touch as I know you as a helpful admin, having previously corresponded re the self-styled "Cassandra" IP sock but this regards an entirely different matter on which I'd appreciate some advice. An article I nominate for deletion was deleted yesterday, then re-created and re-edited by a user who was previously uninvolved. They have taken strong objection to my re-nomination of the article. My question regards this edit, which strikes me as a shameless and blatant move to hide the fact that the article is being considered for deletion. On my montitor at least it renders the AfD template utterly illegible. I'm a little reluctant to revert without seeking a trustworthy view on it as I'm concerned I may be missing something that makes the edit acceptable and I don't want to start an edit war but would like to address it if it is an underhand move. Best wishes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The recreation of Independent Publisher Book Award so soon after the first AfD certainly has the potential to ruffle some feathers. I left a note for User:My76Strat asking him to undo his change to the head of the article, which has the effect of hiding the AfD notice. I couldn't resist forming my own opinion about deletion of the article, and at present I'm on the fence. The verdict of the first AfD was certainly not ironclad. If you wanted to be super-diplomatic you could withdraw your AfD nomination and allow a month before filing again. You could also ask User:DGG if he's heard of this award and if so, does it has any influence with librarians when considering book acquisition. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I have to say I was a little surprised myself that the article had been deleted without greater input to the AfD, expecting to see it re-listed for another week. That said, for the claims to great notability made for this award in the article (e.g. "the largest book awards contest in the world") I find the dearth of coverage oustside of the awarding body and recipients puzzling at the least. I'll see what DGG has to say. Not sure how inclined I feel towards the super-diplomacy line any more. I might have earlier in the course of events but after the micro-AfD-template stunt and Strat's continued tactic at the AfD of attributing to me a spurious line of argument in order to knock it down, I'm not sure I want to give them the satisfaction. I'll sleep on it though. Incidentally, though I haven't (and don't feel particularly inclined to) checked out Strat's "pretty extensive writing endeavor" I'm wondering if they are worried that my doubts about this article may also pertain to the 50 stubs they have laboured over, potentially also calling them into question. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm checking, and am about to make a preliminary comment at the AfD . DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 23:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Zaza people

Try to read this: Linguistic studies shows that the Zazas may have immigrated to their modern-day homeland from the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. Some Zazas use the word Dimli (Daylami) to describe their ethnic identity. The word Dimli (Daylami) also describes a region of Gilan Province in today’s Iran. Some linguists connect the word Dimli with the Daylamites in the Alborz Mountains near the shores of Caspian Sea in Iran and believe that the Zaza have migrated from Daylam towards the west. Today, Iranian languages are still spoken in southern regions of Caspian Sea (also called the Caspian languages), including Sangsarī, Māzandarānī, Tātī (Herzendī), Semnānī, Tāleshī, and they are grammatically and lexically very close to Zazaki; this supports the argument that Zazas immigrated to eastern Anatolia from southern regions of Caspian Sea.

And this: It is generally believed that the Zazas immigrated to their modern day homeland from the southern shores of the Caspian Sea.[citation needed] Some Zazas use the word Dimli (Daylami) to describe their ethnic identity. The word Dimil (Daylam) also describes a region of Gilan Province in today’s Iran. Zazaki language also shows similarities with Gilaki, Mazanderani and others spoken by the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. But some historians claim that Zazas didn't immigrate from lands of Daylem, but are descendants of Persians after being defeated by Alexander the Great. Dimili comes from Dümbüllü, old main Zaza tribe that lived in the region of Diyarbakır.

This shows that they are not Kurds, i have taken this from the Wikipedia, can you see what i mean now? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. When the reliable sources that are external to Wikipedia disagree, the best we can do is reflect their diversity. The complexity of this topic is hinted at in our article on Kurds. "The term.. became associated with an amalgamation of Iranian and Iranicized nomadic tribes and groups in the region". When the term 'Kurd' is itself so vague, you can understand why Zaza speakers might not all agree as to whether they are Kurds. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica claims that Zaza is a subdialect of Kurdish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Rutgers-Newark

Thank you for your assistance in rectifying the WP:RM issue with Rutgers-Newark. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at ColonelHenry's talk page. (re: disruptive reverting)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Coasterlover1994's talk page.
Message added 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My Arbcom appeal

Hi Ed,

regarding your comment on my topic ban appeal [[59]]

We have met before I got banned. I contacted you because of SA sockpuppeting:

I continued to highlight SA sockpuppeting

SA told me this [60] please note " I will also continue to encourage others on Wikipedia to oppose your efforts. "

Well he did, many times, successfully:

In the assessment of my conduct on wikipedia this sockpuppeting plays a role.

I am not saying I blame my ban on him. No, I am the only one to blame for getting banned. But if you want to come to an fair assessment of my conduct on WP, this should be weighed in and it wasn't when I got banned.

--POVbrigand (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that we've interacted before. But the fact that SA may have wanted to see you banned should be given no weight when considering your appeal. The problem is that you don't have much of a case for lifting the ban. The events described in your ban discussion make it sound like the original ban was fully justified. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
There had been a Arbcom Enforcement Request against me before, by the same editor, which closed without sanctions on 23 February 2012. You might want to read the comments by users Robert Horning, AndyTheGrump, and especially GRuban.
I got "away with" a stern warning to keep decorum, but I believe it can be concluded that my conduct up until Feb 2012 was not bannable. Not perfect either, because I had started with way too much aggression. I learned from that episode.
From 23 February up until 20 June (when I made the BaBar comment on FTN that led to my ban), I think I toned down my participation on cold fusion quite a bit (in line with the warning). A lot of the discussion on the talk page were disturbed (or rigged, or initiated) by the banned user (see the links provided above for examples)
I don't know what triggered me to make that stupid pointy argument on FTN. Maybe I wanted to highlight that even mainstream science can be dismissed when the same (unfair) argumentation is applied to it as I had seen being applied to cold fusion all the time. Maybe I was just fed up with the whole situation.
During the ban discussion, T.Canens originally proposed to topic ban me for 3 months. User SteveBaker, who's time had been wasted the most, tended to "not malice or bad faith".
A lot of the discussion was about if I was a sockpuppet of PCarbonn, that accusation was introduced by, you guessed it, the banned user. Another point was the SPA nature of my account.
User NuclearWarfare, building on the "alternate account" and the sockpuppet allegations, then proposed a indef ban with the appeal contigent to reveal my old account.
NuclearWarfare later stated:"I'm somewhat surprised that even after Roger's comment, the sanction was enacted as I proposed. I wouldn't consider the appeal restriction necessary anymore" User_talk:Roger_Davies/Archive_26#POVbrigand
So while I do think a ban was appropriate. The ban should have been only for the FTN pointy stunt and 3 months topic ban should have been fair.
The indef ban sanction came about because of uncertainty about my old account and sockpuppet allegations made by a banned user. The old account was already unused at the time (a few edits in 2009, and only 3 edits since then), it was completely harmless, a lazy wikignome account and I had already revealed it to arbcom in 2011 (IIRC). Don't ask why I believed it was a good idea to mention on my user page that I had an old account. It caused so much distress, unbelievable.
I just want to go back to my "wikignome" edit behaviour that I had since 2004 on different wikiprojects. And I want to do that without a topic ban. I just want to get "clean" again.
I do not mind to reveal my old account to you, or other admins, just not publicly.
Thanks for listening to me --POVbrigand (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Actually, what you need to do is go back to your wikignome behaviour, and show the community that you can actually do it before the restrictions will be lifted. Seriously, go and gnome away in areas that are not covered by the restriction, and then request changes after a few months - you're putting the cart so far in front of the horse that the horse is losing interest (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

R62 (New York City Subway car)

Thank you for protecting the article, but there is no chance to get consensus on the talk page. The IP doesn't want to hear about the need to provide sources, he only says "My edits are true" and will continue after the protection expires. We have to find another solution. Vcohen (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you summarize the evidence on the talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done, here it is. Vcohen (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Replied at Talk:R62 (New York City Subway car)#In brief about the current edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi, is there any chance of you taking a look at the contributions of 59.163.10.123 to Agrawal and List of Agrawal people? They have been reverted and warned on several occasions by several people. I could take it to WP:EW but am off out soon and am contributing only in small doses while my health improves. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries - someone else has just taken them to WP:AN3 regarding the same articles. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Paralympians

Hi Ed discussion and link to Sebastian Marc RM is here. You'll see the RM gives unanimous support for Paralympian BLPs being spelled accurately, going forward also. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Note admin John Vandenberg active on WP Paralympian if questions. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Trieste

To be honest is not a dispute, but a simple countervandalism case. All these accounts belongs to a certain association (which is used a source for the contents added on that page) canvassing and pov-pushing on Wikipedia since 2008. I already locked a bunch of accounts but now I prefer waiting the end of a SPI since most of them are not sockpuppets but meatupuppets. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, thank you for your kind suggestion! --Vituzzu (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


You have new message/s You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Just to say...

...I'm now offline for a while, but would appreciate your latest at User talk:CsDix#AWB request. Thank you. CsDix (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf book and author... under sanctions?

Jens Bjørneboe, a Waldorf teacher and author, wrote a novel called Jonas which criticizes public schools and promotes an unnamed teaching system that has been said to be like Waldorf. Thus these both are Waldorf-related articles. I would like to know if they automatically get the same sanctions as Waldorf education, or whether the ArbCom final decision was applicable only to one article. Binksternet (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Amendments by motion. The standard discretionary sanctions apply to "all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed." So in my opinion these articles are included. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions clean up

Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced edit warring accusation

Sorry, Ed, I'm not warring. Winkelvi offered edits and not all were accepted. As WP:consensus says, no consensus means no change. If he misstated the record in his complaint, I expect you to catch that as a good admin. Did you warn Winkelvi? For some reason, he thinks he shouldn't be edited. Please counsel him on that instead of threatening me when I'm just editing the page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You've been in many past disputes just like this one. Nothing forced you to go up to three reverts. "Not all were accepted" makes it sound like you own the article, and you expect him to win your approval. Neither of you seems to have any idea how to get the dispute resolved, except by continued lecturing of the other party. An experienced editor should have some ideas on how to get outside opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hi Ed, I recently started a request for clarification regarding some procedural issues that have recently arisen at AE.[61] Since you were involved in some of the related discussions, you might like to comment. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Left a comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#COI Template]. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kamrup region lede issue

Hi,

As you have suggested here, I have fleshed out the comments in Talk:Kamrup_region#Lede_dispute_--_A_summary with notes and references. Could you please have a look and comment? I am leaving a note here because the thread at WP:ANI has been archived. Thanks,

Chaipau (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Slow-acting anon vandal

He doesn't edit much, but all of his edits involve changing demographic numbers by adding zeros, basically making wikipedia article inaccurate. Look at the edit history: [62]. Should this mischievous IP be blocked?Faustian (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!Faustian (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes

Hi, from what I recall, Unknown years of Jesus had pending changes for a while then you semi-protected it for a month and now it expired back to nothing. We just had a careful discussion there and all the sources were checked and fixed. Given that the page is a natural magnet for fringe items added by IPs, I think it deserves Pending changes in any case as we go forward so it will not decay back to the chaotic state it used to have. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to see an argument for semiprotection given the lack of problems in the past two months. There are no IP edits since mid-January. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

rastiniak / amiram goldblum

hi ed,

i wanted to ask your opinion about Amiram Goldblum. User Rastiniak (who has two accounts, one in english and one in hebrew; and is trying to sort it out but hasn't yet) has in the past claimed to be goldblum himself (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rastiniak#Talkback as one example) and then claimed not to be. if i understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUTO correctly, should he not identify himself, and generally refrain from editing his own page? thanks. Soosim (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rastiniak/Archive. You really don't have an argument unless he uses both accounts to edit a contentious article. Then the provisions of WP:SOCK start to apply and a block of one account might be considered. This appears to be a confused person rather than someone who is trying to conceal their background. Even WP:AUTO has large loopholes and you need to show that they are editing Amiram Goldblum to slant the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

AC/DS comments requested

Hi, as an administrator who has recently been active at WP:AE, you may be interested in AGK's request for comments at User talk:Sandstein#Draft of discretionary sanctions update.  Sandstein  15:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Note to self - this post is now archived at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2013/March#Draft of discretionary sanctions update. Anyone may comment on AGK's draft at User talk:AGK/DS#Comments. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Maria0333

Hi, have you seen what has been going on at User talk:Maria0333 since her block ended a few hours ago? I think that we may have a real problem. Is some sort of mentoring needed? - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left her a warning under WP:ARBIPA about her edit at Baloch Students Organization, which seems to be inserting a personal nationalist POV into article text. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I haven't even looked at that article but her talk page attack (I can live with it) that erroneously claims I come from "rival country India" does not bode well from an ARBIPA perspective. Let's hope that it sinks in because I think the BSO article is the one she was previously warring on. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

Zbrnajsem's comments at the end. I've deleted them twice and commented on his talk page. He won't listen to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of some edits by Zbrnajsem that you think are improper? The thread about cherry-picking appears legitimate, though we expect that people will defer to the talk page and not get into a revert war. It does not seem worthwhile to remove that comment by Z. from the talk page. It may not reflect well on him in the future, but that is what he said. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The thread is legit, but his comments aren't. Here are the latest diffs: 1 2 3
I added this on his talk page after the second time. In this previous discussion from four months ago he was told several times to stop abusing the talk page: 1 2 3 And Andy the Gump eventually took him to the noticeboard that you closed, which is the reason I brought this to you. I don't really want to see him banned or blocked, but then again I don't really care one way or another if it happens, either. Perhaps a warning from you on his page will be sufficient. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I left a comment at User talk:Zbrnajsem#Talk page. You might help by trying to focus the remaining disagreements. Obviously any effort to remove negative evaluations of Oxford as being unkind doesn't fit with our policies. However there might be a case for changing the wording of the lead to match the sources better. Opening an WP:RFC is something to consider. In this edit At Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford User:Smatprt has proposed an alternative version of the lead. That could be the starting point of an RfC on the best wording for the lead. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. That's pretty much going on already here, though it's more an attempt to whitewash Oxford's personality and substitute an Oxfordian view than anything else. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Problematic additions

Hi there Ed. I wanted to bring to your attention a series of edits by User:Anastasia.Bukh. He's recently added on a number of articles related to Armenian-Americans a photo of graffiti supposedly sprayed on a building by members of the gang Armenian Power. Now, normally this would not be a probably were it not for the fact that this photo really does not contribute anything to any of the said articles. From as far I can tell, there is nothing to indicate that this photo was definitely taken in Little Armenia, Los Angeles (on whose article it now appears), but its presence is highly questionable. He's then added it to the Armenian lobby in the United States, an article which has to with Washington politics, not gangs. He's added it to the Armenian American page in the history section, as well as the article Operation Power Outage. The photo does not contribute anything nor even have any relevance to any of the topics of these pages.

All this strikes me as not only a breathtaking lapse in reasoning and bad faith editing, but a hint at the motivations of an editor attempting to impugn and besmirch the name of an entire group of people by the actions of a few (and even then, the point of relevance is sorely missing). Other photos show a similar tendency to spam numerous articles with a photo of marginal importance on a general topic, most of which are explained by a quip of, "I only added one photo". Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not leave a note for the user on his talk page. If you need confirmation that the photos are improper, you could ask at WP:RS/N. I see no third-party sourcing to confirm that these graffiti have anything to do with an Armenian organization. Even if confirmed, their relevance to the articles would need to be shown. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, somehow I knew asking him kindly would not convince him to give any different answer but a defense of those additions.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Cal Poly article(s)

You recently asked if California Polytechnic State University should be semi-protected. Based on the most recent edits by a blocked editor using multiple sockpuppets, the answer is clearly "yes and please do so soon." ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting that article. Can you also do that for California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, please? ElKevbo (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Astronomer28

Hello, EdJohnston. I see that you have dealt with Astronomer28. It has continued being impossible getting through to the user, who now tries to remove all sourced arguments about the part-German origin of Copernicus with constant reverting.--walkeetalkee 18:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Colleabois & Germans

Hi Ed. This user was reported at WP:AN3 as you know. On Talk:Germans, they are again threatening to remove sentences from the article without consensus, at the moment based solely on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, i.e. what they can see in a historical atlas. I have told them that they must use reliable sources in discussions of content and have mentioned two texts (A Social History of Germany and A History of the German People). They have no interest in using textbooks, which is the standard way to edit wikipedia. Instead they have a strong point of view: they previously edited using the Nijmegen IP 195.169.209.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and have redirected the pages there to their own user and user talk page. They are now engaged in disruptive editing. I have seen similar things on Europe but usually that usually has to do with nationalism related to boundary or trans-continental countries (e.g. E4024). Colleabois is no better. He seems to have an anti-German point of view as far as I can tell. He is as disruptive as E4024. I am not quite sure what to do about him. I will leave this message also on ItsZippy's talk page. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The question of 'what is a German' is vague. It is hard to make out a clear pattern of tendentious editing, or to find persuasive diffs. Notifying someone under WP:ARBEE is possible but even that step requires a definite reason. If a person is on a nationalist crusade, they will occasionally make a talk comment that is outrageous and can be quoted. If the user's interest is mostly in the Germans article you might propose an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I would advise Colleabois to skip the harsh rhetoric like 'distorting the matter at hand'. Even so, his questions at Talk:Germans#Summary of Disputed Claims & Phrases : Part I seem to be a good beginning. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Your advice/input would be appreciated

A while back you responded to an edit warring report I filed. I'm continually running into resistance, stonewalling, and reverts from the editor I reported (and you warned) regarding edit warring behavior: Ring Cinema. Wherever that editor goes, so also go Gareth Griffith-Jones and TheOldJacobite. Their tag-team edit warring behavior along with their snide remarks in edit summaries, article talk pages, and my own talk page have become increasingly rude and mocking. The most recent example of this can be seen at the "Fresh Water/Salt Water" section of the Chinatown talk page. I don't find their behavior and attitudes collegial in the least, and would think that experienced editors like they are would be more helpful. There are examples and commentaries all over the internet of how Wikipedia is becoming more and more of an unwelcoming place that suffer or work well with the less-experienced editors. From what I've read, editors are leaving in droves because of the kind of games and article ownership I am encountering at anything those three watchlist. I don't want to seem like a whiner or complainer, but this latest example from the three of them is more than I'm willing to stomach. Yes, I can go to other articles. I'm inclined to believe that others who have tried to edit the articles they watchlist have done exactly that out of frustration. But honestly, is that the answer? I'd appreciate your thoughts as an administrator. I'd also appreciate you looking into this and their behavior a little further than just the links I provided here. The whole thing is pretty ridiculous, but it's also discouraging. I don't think filing a complaint at an administrator's noticeboard is the answer and would rather see things dealt with in a peaceful, adult manner. Report filing seems to just stir up anger -- and adding that to what's already materialized seems counter-productive to me. Thanks. Winkelvi (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a normal talk page discussion occurring at Talk:Chinatown (1974 film). I don't see any need for admin action or any postings at noticeboards. On Wikipedia, other editors will not always agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
In case you are misunderstanding my concern: I'm not talking about the discussion where we disagree about content (the discussion regarding the use of "rape" in the article). I'm talking about the unnecessary chiding and ridicule in the section after it. I thought I was clear in my original post to you above. And, if you're not misunderstanding me, then you're saying that ridiculing another editor for simply asking a question and erroneously accusing them of trolling is acceptable? You don't see a "piling on" happening (as I do)? Winkelvi (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It's true that the other users seem annoyed. My guess is that they are reacting to your removal of the term salt water as an 'unnecessary descriptor'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Winkelvi (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed for User:Maria0333‎

The user has blanked her talk page. I reported her for her un-constructive behaviour and she was blocked for 24 hours, but now with an other image, which is for "Dialects of Punjabi", but she has put it witha size of 400px in these unwanted articles: The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed):

Collapsed to save space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ahmadpur East Attock Attock District Bahawalnagar Bahawalnagar District Bahawalpur Bahawalpur District Bhakkar Bhakkar District Burewala Chakwal Chhachi dialect Chishtian Darya Khan Dera Ghazi Khan Dera Ghazi Khan District Derawali dialect Dhani dialect Dialects of the Punjab Doabi dialect Dogri language Faisalabad Faisalabad District Ghebi dialect Gujar Khan Gujranwala Gujranwala District Gujrat District Gujrat city Haroonabad, Bahawalnagar Hasilpur Jampur Jandali dialect Jauharabad Jhangvi dialect Jhelum Jhelum District Kalabagh Karor Lal Esan Kasur Kasur District Khanewal Khanewal District Khanpur Khushab Khushab District Kot Adu Lahnda (Western Punjabi) Lahore Lahore District Layyah Layyah District Liaqauatpur Lodhran Lodhran District Mailsi Malwi dialect Mianwali Mianwali District Multan Multan District Multani dialect Muzaffargarh Muzaffargarh District Nankana Sahib District Narowal Narowal District Punjab, Pakistan Punjabi language Pwadhi dialect Rahim Yar Khan Rahim Yar Khan District Rajanpur Rajanpur District Rawalpindi Rawalpindi District Riasti dialect Riyasati dialect Sadiqabad Sargodha Sargodha District Shah puri dialect Sheikhupura Sheikhupura District Sialkot Sialkot District Sohawa Thalochi dialect Vehari District

Please help! This image has also a problem of "original research" and is under discussion, but in these unrelated pages with a size of 400px is not justified! This is the image:

File:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan Al-Badri (talk • contribs)

I have left her a warning here. Please let me know if she continues to add personally-created images to any other articles, or gets into wars. I collapsed the list of articles you provided. From 'Whatlinkshere' you can tell that it is more than fifty articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
But I think that your warning had no effect on her. Se needs a higher dosage! She instead of replying you positively, blanked the page, which I reverted temporarily here. I think now we need something other than mere warnings! Faizan (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
She must not try to add that image (or other newly uploaded images) to any more articles, and must not get into edit wars to restore it. If she observes that restriction, I do not plan to take further action. Per WP:BLANKING she is entitled to blank her own talk page. You should not interfere with that. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry Per WP:BLANKING! I have reverted my edits at her talk page!
But what for this long list of unrelated articles? This image should be removed from unrelated articles also as per the Wikipedia's betterment! What do you say about it? Faizan (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
You should remove the image only if you are sure you have obtained consensus to do so. The best thing you can do is wait until the discussion at File talk:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg has reached a conclusion. You don't want to be reported for edit warring yourself. There is no need to consider drastic steps since discussions are ongoing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Since User:Amatulic has now issued a one-week block, I think you should follow up on his talk page if you have any further concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all your hard work at AE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Trieste again

Can you please protected the page again? Vandalisation has started again + talkpage has turned into a rant against me, thank you! --Vituzzu (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Free Territory of Trieste has been semied by User:Tom Morris. I hope the semi doesn't lead to the reappearance of the set of enthusiastic colleagues listed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dorje77/Archive. It is encouraging to know that triestelibera.org has been added to the global spam blacklist. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblock on hold at User talk:ElSaxo

I don't know about this one. It's been a long time and they are sort of promising not to repeat their past behaviors, but it's all a bit vague. Since poor communication was part of the problem I'm hoping a bit of discussion will help make it clear if this is someone we want to unblock or not. Anything you want to add would of course be more than welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:Copernicus

It is indeed "disturbing to see what appears to be a nationalist edit war" but why are you addressing me? I'm trying to keep the long standing neutral version, result of a lengthy and sometimes heated dispute and I don't think I have to "obtain a talk page consensus" for "my changes" as I don't make any changes. You probably didn't follow the edit history or mixed up the involved editors, otherwise I don't understand your message. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Dispute resolution

Wow, just wow. That was really helpful. I have to echo the sentiments of the last poster. Daniel the Monk (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This must be in reply to my recent comment. The move warring was a bonus. Since you both seem to be experienced editors I was a little surprised to see this fiasco. Feel free to ask for review at WP:ANI if you believe that I misjudged the situation and you were not edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBIPA

At ANEW you said that the goings on at Kashmiri Pandit, are you now of the opinion that MrT should be restored to the notification list? Or do you mean the article falls under the scopr of ARBIPA? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant that this article falls under ARBIPA and is a place where nationalist editing has occurred. You put MrT's name in the WP:ARBIPA log previously, but I don't recall seeing a justification. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
It was for constant edit warring. Thank you for the clarification. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment related to you at my talk page

Yes, just to note, I didn't appreciate your clumsy intervention. You seem to be on autopilot, like a lot of other eds involved here.

Why are not assuming good faith? I am NOT assuming good faith in the edit tag team on the page in question, because it's clear they are under arbitration for the problem I am identifying, and have become inadvertently part of, through the edit war the individual and their colleagues started.

How dare you claim disruptive editing, rather than observing and enact tags and cautions for WP:OWN. Who do you think you are? Why are you not putting more effort into improving the content, rather than pointlessly and aggressively over-policing on occasional editor, who came by last night to page by accident, that is clearly badly out of shape, and tried to make the most most of changes very largely by WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, let alone the scientific consensus that would change the piece by WP:NPOV.

I think you need to adjust your attitude. Not least relating to rules, and bureaucracy, and your pathetic ban threats - but in relation to how to govern the development of the content. Stand up to those who are manipulating the content - look up the evidence to that arbitration, as one data point, before challenging me, not the other parties involved.

And leave me the fuck alone. You don't have any stand-out right to intervene, and instead, you should be reviewing the case and issue on its merits and offering constructive guidance for how to correctly edit that article.

Understood? Now have a happy Easter, whoever and wherever you are.

PS Remember this is not a bureaucracy, and you need to avoid treating editors like your minions, following 'your' rules. Your talk page seems a scary place, so little focus on content, so much on procedure and 'control'. No doubt it's useful, but in my case, it's badly misguided. Focus on content, just as much, that's a suggestion.

jmanooch 19:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Admins are expected to enforce the conduct rules. Advising me to focus on content is not helpful in this context. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but it does have policies. If you don't like the policies, you should find another web site. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

You have offered a fair course of action on Democratic Party of Cook County. Hopefully some progress can be made this week. -- Homeaccount (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment please

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just read my comments on the talk against some of Sitush's edits also. I believe tertiary sources are there to help us assign due weight to theories. From BBC to Britannica all acknowledge that there are two theories. I am all in favour of WP:BALANCE but dead against WP:CENSOR.Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing should be avoided. And I note Sitush's comment that this could be an opportunity to source the cradle theory once and for all. It is still up to consensus whether the cradle theory is significant enough to deserve mention in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Canvassing? Where did that come from? I didn't request it to influence the outcome of that discussion. I asked you to read the comments which is consistent with my request to you about monitoring the page, I didn't ask you to get involved in the discussion. I implore you to assume good faith and use common sense. Yes, I have accepted a "voluntary restriction" and that shouldn't serve as a free-pass to others to edit and censor information randomly, should it? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Tjl1128

I'm concerned about this user because they are adding unsourced data to List of countries by GDP (nominal). I noticed you warned them in December about this very subject. I'm not going to go through all of their other contributions (yet) but I think it is almost certain they are doing the same thing on other currency related articles. Considering they won't communicate on talk pages, (language issues?) I think a CIR block might be in order.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider raising the issue at User talk:Tjl1128 or on article talk. There is not enough data for me to take any action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

George Maharis

George Maharis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wonder if you can extend protection time. The 'arrest' thing has been added and removed for a few years. --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is to allow time for a discussion. Surely one month is sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra IP sock

Hi Ed, I spotted a couple of (now thankfully rare) edits by the Cassandra IP-hopping sock just now. You'd given me a very handy range contributions link which I've been checking occasionally for activity, spotting the odd characteristic forum/POV-pushing edit over the last few months. Interestingly though, today's IP didn't show up, falling (slightly by the look of it) out of range. Not sure if this is at all significant and, not being fully au fait with the workings of range contributions, wondered either if it provided info for a further tweak, or just indicates they were editing from somewhere different to their usual base. Not to worry if it's just an anomaly and once again thanks for all the help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. You can modify that rangecontribs link to 92.12.0.0/16 if you want to look for more edits from the new range. The old block was on 92.5.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) but it's no longer active. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed, I'll keep an eye on the new range. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Inventions

(Previous discussion at User talk:2.239.136.182)

Hello, a separate article on Tito's funeral is not aencyclopedic and it's only propaganda for Josip Broz, who was not benevolent dictator: there are many books and sources in English language and other languages. In Josip Broz Tito I removed that source, simple because sentence largest funeral in history is invention! I know book of Jasper Godwin Ridley (25 May 1920 – 1 July 2004) and there is not sentence largest funeral in history in any page! But Josip Broz Tito's article is a serie of propaganda's inventions in every section! 2 examples are in section [Historical criticism]: authors Ivo Goldstein and Sabrina Ramet in those inserted sources accuse Broz Tito of crimes and not defense him with invented telegram's legend! I can continue but you can read Broz Tito's version in simple English which has many linked books and sources.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.239.136.182 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 4 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Hi Ed, yes thanks for the note, yes I'm aware it does seem rather wasteful of admin time to be putting in TRs for moves that can be done oneself. The reason is that at least a year or 18 months ago there were still 2 or 3 editors vocally objecting to foreign squiggly bits on foreigners' names - in fact it was still controversial up to the Talk:Dominik Halmosi bulk RM which seems to have WP HOCKEY confirm an existing consensus, and for that reason BDD and I think I recall also BobRayner have suggested it is better at least for the time being to do as TR to at least give some visibility via the move at least appearing on the TR header. However against this I've had 2 admins, and you are the 3rd, say it not an issue and just move them when they are redlinks. To be honest if a 4th admin says the same I will do just that. In the meantime the number is very small, the vast bulk of 4 million articles have European accents where appropriate, so these are a few BLP stubs here and there. But your point is taken, it is creating extra work to list them, I do understand that. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, no problem. For people who seem to have their career in a Francophone country, have a name that looks French, and where at least one source supports it I would not think that adding the French accent would be very controversial. I wouldn't apply the same thinking to anything other than French. German can get into subtleties with the umlaut and the esszet that could require study. Spanish names are complicated since the person may be well-known in an Anglophone country and you could argue that the WP:COMMONNAME is not accented. And certainly any names from Eastern Europe can become controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The WP Germany MOS has some guidelines. For Germany Wikipedia represents the umlaut in all cases except change of nationality, (e.g. Schoenberg) but the esszet in only some. WP SPAIN doesn't have a formal MOS, but observation of article reality shows that we also don't anglicize Dominicans unless they change citizenship, and a green card is not a loss of BLP primary nationality. As far as East Europe Talk:Dominik Halmosi indicates that after the banning of 1 editor the rest of WP HOCKEY no longer finds East Europeans' names controversial. However, if you see any tennis players as TRs don't move them! In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
So the game of hockey is now an oasis of peace and tranquillity, while the tennis editors dispute over accents? EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The editor causing the trouble at Hockey got caught manually locking redirects by redirect-edits after controversial moves, then caught again socking. Hockey seems to have been peace and light since. One editor is all it takes. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please extend block

Hello Ed. Thank you for your service clerking. After a week the recent protection of Democratic Party of Cook County is due to expire tomorrow, and sadly I am writing to request an extension, as only the most superficial consensus has developed in the past week. In a recent 3RR report User:Demiurge1000 described User:Homeaccount as "apparently relatively inexperienced," of which assessment I am frankly somewhat skeptical, but on the basis of that possible experience differential I am attempting with growing frustration to lean toward assuming WP:CIR rather than WP:IDHT; please if beyond an extension you had time and inclination to scan Talk:Democratic Party of Cook County and User_talk:Homeaccount I would greatly appreciate your counsel. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I extended the protection for another week, in the hope that you will actively pursue WP:Dispute resolution. Consider an WP:RFC on the article talk page or a filing at WP:DRN. Let me know if you need assistance. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the extension and the advice and the offer of help. I have never done a WP:RFC or WP:DRN preferring to work things out 1-on-1 and bring along less experienced editors where possible. I believe the content issues on this article are straight-forward. Stepping back and reviewing the dialog at Talk:Democratic Party of Cook County and User_talk:Homeaccount, my feeling is that the fundamental problem is comprehension, more specifically, misunderstandings with respect to 1. fending off WP:MOS with appeals to RS style, 2. individual vs. collective responsibility for WP:NPOV, 3. WP:NPA, and 4. WP:IDHT. I feel clarification of our norms may be a prereq for collaboration. Might WP:RFC/U be the best tool here to initiate a level-setting discussion of policies and guidelines with a 3rd party? What is your advice? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I could not agree more with the extension as the warring editor has made no attempt to even begin to articulate his issues with the content of the article in the last seven days. Sadly, no progress has been made. -- Homeaccount (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ebrahimi Amir again

Sorry..I put in the AE board. I wanted to discuss behavior but he actually violated his term for being unbanned. Also it is more controversial than it might seem, as the user is inserting his own self-made map! If you read it carefully, Doug Weller had a comment also on the map he made. --Xodabande14 (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Move of Budget album

When you moved Budget album and deleted Budget Albums, it broke a whole bunch of redirects to the latter page. If you move any more pages and delete the original title, please check if anything redirects there first; otherwise, they will all get tagged for speedy deletion and we could lose a whole bunch of valid redirects. (I also restored Budget Albums, since it seems like a valid title for a redirect.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! I should have been more careful. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nationalist self made map by User:Ebrahimi-amir

Hi Ed, I am going to report Ebrahimi Amir to arbcomm for his violation of not getting a consensus for controversial edits. --Xodabande14 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry Ed..that was me..I had already declared it as my account. I declare my accounts. It has to do with the location I am at and also trying to quit. So I revised the previous message and I will submitting an AE request right now. Thanks.--Xodabande14 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I just asked Ebrami-amir to respond here and you removed the thing I wanted him to respond to. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This has been a pattern with this user. I am currently preparing an Arbcomm report for admins to see. Will keep you up to date. Sorry to write so much recently..--Xodabande14 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Unclear to me just whose pattern it is, since your edits are confusing and your switching of accounts is hard to follow. You removed the data about his behavior that I hoped we could discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I write about it in here and here. Thanks.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring Copernican Principle

I strongly disagree. These guys (materialscientist, Drbogdan, and Lithopsian especially) keep reverting my edits; though well thought out and documented. They keep telling me to go to talk, and weeks go by, and no one discusses this. I will take this further. These guys are basically trying to sweep the truth under the rug and use Wikipedia to lie to the public. Let them ban me. They are liars at best, and probably much worse, and are making a fool of Wikipedia. Every cosmologist knows that what I am saying is true, but the establishment cosmologist who want to protect billions in funding wants to whitewash the truth. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Call any cosmologist you know, and ask if the CMB anisotropies and correlation to the ecliptic are an issue for LCDM, big bang, or inflation, and if they have an ounce of integrity they will tell you yes. Read the references I supplied. I plan on publicizing this widely, and Wikipedia is going to have egg on its face. The truth is breaking out, but apparently not on Wikipedia- the last ditch defense for the establishment. Wyattmj (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi EdJohnston! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus (RfC: rewrite of the nationality section)

As you probably already know, some Polish users seem to be 'silenced down' by (German?) admins from voicing their opinions and concerns regarding the handling of article's edits/amendments on Copernicus' nationality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus#RfC:_rewrite_of_the_nationality_section

My comment, for that matter, has been deleted. See its' copy below:

___

  • I support the version proposed by Astronomer28 ([63]), which provides a clear, concise & neutral explanation of Copernicus' nationality, with the focus not on multiple free quotes from different historians and other people, but mainly on providing encyclopedic sources stating his nationality, which is Wikipedia's core principle. Also, regarding the above comment by IIIraute, I certainly don't agree with your proposal that "only established editor opinions should be taken into account", as before this new section was estbalished and the discussion started, two Polish users Astronomer28 and Mieszko_8 were banned yesterday by the admin Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, whose native language is - surprise, surprise - German. Hence, it may give rise to justified suspicion of a typical German sneaky attitude for handling the case in their favour in an unfair way.

___

It appears that Wikipedia is sadly drifting into the direction of right and righteous. Should it be the case, it would lead to Wikipedia's gradual demise.

109.78.220.220 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes you even more credible when you assume that admins are biased due to their nationality. The last time I heard Future Perfect criticized for such reasons it was due to his knowledge of the Greek language. That implies (of course) that he must be pro-Greek. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Which is actually wrong, because as others have pointed out, I am thoroughly anti-Greek and pro-FYROMIAN. I'm also a paid agent of the Turkish secret service. To cover this all up, I've decided to only identify as a primate on my user page. Simia sum, nil simiani a me alienum puto. Hence, it logically follows that I always have a privileged super-neutral perspective on everything. Fortunately, pro-simian and anti-simian POVs are rarely much of an issue in Wikipedia debates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
@Ed, almost all users who participated in the current Serafin SPI received a similar message, it's Mieszko 8 evading his block again [64]. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Kammrup region lede

User:Bhaskarbhagawati has again edited the lede on Kamrup region (diff) without first trying to resolve the issue on the talk page (Talk:Kamrup region#Lede dispute -- A summary). If you recall, he initiated the process (here) Chaipau (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have notified Bhaskarbhagawati so that he may respond here if he wishes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston ! Thanks for your message. Actually i tried to incorporate original lede i.e at the time of creation which has inline reference and Chaipau's version as compromise till we reach consensus in later time. Please advice us. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Since Chaipau reverted your change, it seems not to have consensus. Can you open a discussion with him to reach an actual agreement before changing the lead again? By now you're in deep water and you should consider making a serious effort to be diplomatic. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Grateful for your guidance. Please check this government district links to verify name of Kamrup in ancient times http://kamrup.nic.in/histfr.htm http://kamrupmetro.nic.in/history.asp Thanks ! भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Giving me content arguments is not helpful. Please get back to me after you've contacted User:Chaipau and reached an agreement with him. Or link to any discussion where you think consensus was reached. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for inserting some urgency into this matter. I went ahead and created a section where we could work on a compromise text (diff), starting with the current text. The two subsequent inputs from User:Bhaskarbhagawati (diff) and (diff) are entirely without any effort at a meaningful discussion. I would like you to consider closing this exercise, or suggest another course of action, though if you think we should persevere with this kind of exchange, we will. My experience in the past suggests I shall waste valuable time trying to keep the discussion meaningful. Chaipau (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
While i am struggling to keep sourced lede over none one, this double standard is noteworthy. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Mieszko 8

Hi, I've commented at ANI; fully support the indef, could consider a ban if it continues. GiantSnowman 08:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism

ANEW report

Ed, if you're still around, I'm about to go off-wiki. I'm trying to negotiate (only in my administrative capacity) a resolution to the content dispute and edit warring at the above article. And I'm trying to do it without blocks and without locking the article. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic. For a while, it was progressing, but User:TheRedPenOfDoom is testing the limits of my patience. If he reverts again, I intend to block him, although I'm not happy about it. He's a valuable but very stubborn editor. Anyway, if you're around, you have my "permission" to do whatever you think best with the article and with the editors. If I block TRPoD, you may unblock him without consulting with me. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You are probably off-wiki, but I decided to lock the article and commented why at ANEW. I was juggling too many balls with my earlier approach, and it was too difficult to control.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Full protection is a wonderful thing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I should've done it from the get-go. That'll teach me to try for a complex solution. Somehow I don't think 3 days will be enough, but we'll see.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Recent log entry in WP:ARBMAC

I actually did that already in September 2011. They've ignored several warnings back then, I also blocked them for a day a while ago, and now recently they've done it again and now I blocked them for a week. I should mention that WHOIS appears useless - it's an IP in a block of 4k IPs that's just marked as customers of some random Serbian ISP. We don't know if it's a single person, a group, a company, a dorm, a proxy, or whatever. I later noticed they interacted with an editor at User talk, but not before cursing at them elsewhere. *facepalm* It seems to me that a pattern of escalation will follow, not dissimilar to the case of Ali Muratovic - they'll come back, continue unabated, get blocked for an even longer period, rinse, repeat. :/ --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really block them because of the ARBMAC warning a year and a half ago, I blocked them because they were generally disruptive - just hammering away at edits without edit summaries or talk despite the fact a gazillion people sent them messages to stop - that's disruptive regardless of the edit content. I guess I could have posted to ANI instead of adding to the ARBMAC log, but this note will actually stick as opposed to the ANI instant rotation treadmill. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hyphen

We've just been though a hyphen nightmare, where a faction of people (who apparently have no tied to Athletics (sport)) wanted to forcibly hyphenate Cross country running based on WP:Hyphen against its common usage in the sport. You just did a "non-controversial" renaming of Florence Griffith Joyner, removing the hyphen. I'm confused. Where is the unnecessary addition and the removal, proper? Line one of the edict, I'm sorry, guideline, says "In hyphenated personal names"

Are we going to unhyphenate (from the athletics world) Veronica Campbell-Brown, Marie-José Pérec, Pauline Davis-Thompson or the double hyphenated Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce too? If we are, I'll start compiling a list. Trackinfo (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN declares that hyphens are used in hyphenated personal names. Is that controversial? According to most of the references in Florence Griffith Joyner's article, she does *not* have a hyphenated personal name. On the other hand, Veronica Campbell-Brown (at least in Google) usually keeps the hyphen. If you want to challenge the renaming of Griffith Joyner, a move discussion is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I requested this as non-controversial because all the high level sources (official website, Library of Congress etc) have her without hyphen (thus one can assume this was the legal name). There was already mixed usage in the article. As a move, this has no impact on other people – I believe article titles should be decided on a case-by-case basis. It is more important to match the sources than it is to strive for some in-wiki consistency (cf. African Championships in Athletics, but European Athletics Championships). SFB 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Nochoje

Hi Ed. This is a courtesy report regarding Nochoje. I was in the middle of writing a report to you about this guy but FPaS with a lightning-fast action indeffed him while I was still writing it to you. Here, for posterity, is the now historical report:

"Sorry for the disturbance but Nochoje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started the edit-wars and the socking over bad quality pictures again. In 2011 you had blocked him for edit-warring and socking at Peloponnese. At the time he kept removing good pictures from the Peloponnese article and adding his own as can be seen here. Please notice that one of the pictures he is removing is the picture of the Rio-Antirrio Bridge. This is the IP sock in 2011 also removing the exact same pictures. Spring forward two years and now we have Nochojoe edit-warring to remove, you guessed it, the picture of the Rio-Antirrio Bridge from the article of Greece: [65], [66], [67], [68]. But there's more. Now we have Athens and Nochoje edit-wars to add his crappy pictures there too using another sock IP this time: 91.217.243.37. The proof 91.217.243.37 (talk · contribs) is Nochoje is here: [69]."

Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see this also. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's good that you guys figured this out. However it is unusual to directly edit a sock archive. It would be advisable to contact an SPI clerk and get them to straighten out the report, and somehow link it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mywayyy. This will help to keep future Mywayyy socks in check. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I feel appropriately chastised :-) Hadn't actually noticed it was an old archive when I made my edit earlier today; just saw it light up on my watchlist for some reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It was me who caused it to light up when I reverted an improper entry by E4024 back in 2012 as "out of process". But when I saw Future editing there, and knowing that Future never makes mistakes, :) I replied there. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

How was this uncontroversial and discussed at a user talk page

To me this is a bit of wtf moment? This was not a technical move and the discussion belonged at RM not on a user talk page. Move disaster. -166.137.210.20 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's simply fixing a user error, that can surely be handled as a technical move. If you want to redesign the future of this set of articles, feel free to open a regular move discussion. I didn't want to leave two articles in the wrong namespace for a week while the wheels turned. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
But you did not move the original article back to its original location, and, once the other IP user protested you should have opened a RM discussion at an article talk page or WP:RM, instead you moved a reworked article into two different locations. The user should also he checked if he/she is doing any more moves. But, once he had moved a legit article into user space, that is the move that should have been completley undone, rather than any debate in user space, over ignored protests. This is not a minor topic, either, the Geology of North America. -166.137.210.17 (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You are aware that I completely undid the moves of Geology of North America and Geology of the United States into user space? Check my move log if you wish. Feel free to open a new move discussion for any moves that you think still need to be performed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not aware of that, because it seems from the discussion and history that they were moved into user space, heavily changed, then moved backed with a claim that it was a technical move. My point here is that there are places to discuss problematic moves,and requested technical moves and user talk are not those places. If you are handling technical moves, and the request does not qualify, please move it to RM or simply deny it and ask the poster to raise the request in the proper location so the community can reach consensus. -166.137.210.22 (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to appeal my actions in some appropriate place. I am confident that I was staying within policy. See WP:REG for how to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with you; uncontroversial doesn't usually have a lot of disagreement, and if an IP raises a disagreement, until you an MBisanz change policy to exclude IP editing, that IP was a disagreement that indicated the moved was not uncontroversial. I've said my piece, you disagree. I will watch the technical moves more closely in the future. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The policy:

"If your technical request is contested by another editor, remove the request from the "Contested technical requests" section and follow the instructions at Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.'

The bold is in the original. If is "contested by another editor," not two or anything, just "contested by another editor." The request should have been moved by the poster. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because I'm not sure, but are you the same IP that is usually at 68 at BRFA? MBisanz talk 15:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Answered at your talk page. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bedson

I've spent too much time today deleting his articles, and then found a new one, [70]. Any chance you could do a few? Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I did four of them. Do you think a checkuser could block the underlying IP? EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Proxies (several). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson. CU found another one after I found MayPlay (Green Phantom). I think a lot of his articles wouldn't survive AfD and/or should be redirects. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
And now kicking myself that I didn't remember Special Nuke[71] = would have saved me hours! But the hand work I did satisfied me that he's still creating bad articles. He's still also trying to negotiate a comeback. Dougweller (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Statistics journals

Thanks for making this move Template_talk:Open_access_statistics_journals. Could you also move the talk pages as well, so that the content is at Template_talk:Statistics_journals and Template_talk:Open_access_statistics_journals is a redirect? Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow - that was speedy! Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

CSG#G6 for RM

EdJohnston, thank you for your recent assistance with my G6 requests to make room for a move, and then subsequently going back to properly close out the move request. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with an more complex requested move

Hi Ed,

As an unsolved admin, can you please evaluate the discussion at Talk:Dot_the_i#Requested_move and consider closing. Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As an 'unsolved admin', I've taken care of it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned Changes to UST Global :: Thank you for your help

Hello Ed.

I hope this e-mail finds you doing well. Your last intervention in October has kept this 'Repeat Problem' at bay until last week.

This is again an employee at UST Global who makes changes without signing in on Wikipedia.com.

As you recall, the records for the founder of the site were spelled out in papers filed with the Superior Court of California in November 2007.

We have now reverted back to an individual(s) not signing in, making the edit to incorrectly state that G. A. Menon was founder and to remove the entry of Stephen J. Ross.

Thanks for considering placing a protection template on the site (as you have for 3 times in a row) that would restrict edits for a period of XX days.

I am grateful to you Ed for this.

Thanks & Regards,

Steve Ross --Stevejross (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_29&oldid=1181872889"