User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Offer?

First, believe me or not, I didnt remember the 3RR, but although recognizing that's not an excuse, its clear that the pro-ukrainian editors gamed that rule by rotating themshelves in order to restore the unreliable content. I think its very harmful to WP's declining credibility to let users made groups or lobbys, so that they cant control totally the articles and the edits, as in this case. Second your offer is in practice an invitation to inactivity and to left the article solely in the hands of the ukrainian & pro-ukrainian editors. Why I say that? If you look to the Donetsk People's Republic talk page, there are other users apart from me that had denounced the evident negative bias of the article, but they had being ignored by the lobby I talk about upwards. The result is that is impossible to edit an ukrainian-related article unless you follow the POV of that group of editors. That's very, very sad and a direct shot against WP credibility and participation of other users. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions about bias could be addressed through WP:Dispute resolution. There are ways of bringing in more people to the discussion. But meanwhile, I need to know if you are accepting the offer. You've already broken 3RR. Expecting the community to let you revert as much as you want is hardly the pathway to consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr Johnston, I must say that it is hard to take this editor seriously when he is concurrently making unilateral PoV page moves that separate talk pages from their associated articles. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted warning templates back

I reverted on Lisa's talk page, but a suggestion that you keep a good eye on both Lisa, Epeefleche, and Talk:Shabbos App. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

This is a Long-Term Abuse issue and we're tracking it. User:Drmies/Roman Catholic? has the goods, and we just simply revert and ignore; if it gets out of hand and needs blocking, you can probably raise a new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gullucum1956. Thanks for your help. Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Punjabi language RfC

Dear User:EdJohnston, hello! I hope this message finds you doing well. After seeing an editor remove valuable information at the Punjabi language article, I opened up a discussion on the talk page, and consequently an RfC. I am concerned that there is some gaming taking place here, with editors such as User:Itar buttar and User:Guglani magically showing up to oppose, after not editing for a few months. Today, someone (perhaps a sockmaster) created and account, User:Jaskaran singh sachdeva, in order cast an opposition vote. These oppose votes are in the minority at the RfC as of now. In addition, anonymous IP addresses, such as 39.47.73.221, 39.47.9.115, and 39.47.91.176 are showing up at the article to edit war while the RfC is taking place. Since you are an administrator and a neutral party, I am requesting you to monitor the progress of the RfC and to close it when appropriate. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. Have a great day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

After checking the edit history and seeing reverts by an IP-hopper, I've semiprotected the article for three months. After the RfC has run long enough, you have the option of listing it at WP:AN/RFC. It does appear that some of the opinions in the discussion are not based on reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:EdJohnston, thank you for your reply. I do appreciate you protecting the article. However, what should we do about the newly created accounts that have been created just to comment in that RfC? Just today, the accounts User:Harvard2014 and User:Jaspr8 were created in order to participate. Since the start of the RfC, other similar accounts have been created, e.g. User:Jaskaran singh sachdeva, who coincidentally (or not) was welcomed by User:Guglani, one of the participants who advocates removing the referenced information from the article. If I ask those at WP:AN/RFC to close it, I'm afraid that they might be unaware of all these issues surrounding the RfC. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks! With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that single-purpose accounts are participating in the RfC you can add a comment to point that out. The closing administrator should be able to take that into account. At present the Punjabi language article cites the use of Devanagari in Ref. 6. I also came across this article on the subject by Atamjit Singh but I don't know whether it's reliable. Surely the existence of Punjabi-language books published in the Devanagari script would settle the matter if anyone can find them. It seems that the question of what script to use may be an ethnic hot potato. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference User:EdJohnston. In my view, it seems to corroborate the three references that I've shared here, especially Singh's words, which state:

There is no denying that Punjabi was written in Gurmukhi, Persian characters and Devanagari; but it was Gurmukhi which was being used by both Hindus and Sikhs for writing their literature. Since the Sikh scriptures were written in Gurmukhi, the Sikhs naturally favored the use of this script for Punjabi. Hindus opposed Gurmukhi precisely for this reason and wanted to use Devanagari for the Punjabi language.

I appreciate your advice about how to deal with the new accounts. In the RfC, I went ahead and added the {{spa}} template underneath their comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Your effort in going the extra mile to find what seemed "un-findable" for the Myles Munroe article is greatly appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In recent news

I was wondering if that editor was trying to insult me in order to be able to claim that I'm involved later on--but that's not something a new editor would do. Honestly I can't make up my mind as to whether we're dealing with a returned editor or a new one, and it probably doesn't matter. Now, please note the edit warring they've been involved in, and note that they've been warned. I'm not going to block them, though this block is inevitable, since I don't wish to give them a reason to abuse Srebrenica another time. Isn't that just about the lowest one can go? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Must. Remain. Calm. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I'm fine--I'm watching the most wonderful movie. Who'd have thunk that an Ingmar Bergman movie could be uplifting? Anywayz, I reverted our mutual acquaintance's edits on your board, and will do so again if they reinstate it. Tack sa mycket, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche

Hello, i'm asking a request from you to warn Epeefleche about abuse of warning templates as I tried to here: [1], but the editor doesn't care to listen via my talk page. The editor gets involved into conflicts and prefers to accuse the opposite editor of disruptive editing to get his/her way per WP:GAME by bashing the user's talk page by placing high level warnings without asking to start a discussion and likes to violate the 2RR, 3RR rule and continues to place high level warning templates. I know you've warned me about editing other editor's talk page. I believe you as an administrator should remind Epeefleche about Wikipedia:Civility. My warning of user talk page abuse: [2] isn't quite good enough from refraining the use of abuse of high level warning templates. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"You can't use warning templates if you yourself are involved in the conflict." This sounds like your own novel interpretation. Have you found anywhere that this is written down in Wikipedia policy or guidelines? As evidence that actual practice does not follow that rule, it is common for people in a dispute to warn each not to violate 3RR, even with templates such as {{uw-3rr}}. There is nothing wrong with those warnings. Admins are constantly telling people to be sure that the other party is warned of 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecnunsaskin (talk • contribs)

I have advised User talk:Mecnunsaskin to stop leaving these messages, to avoid spam complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Why exactly was nothing done in regards to the IP in this discussion? Not only was he the one to have broken 3RR and create a false Edit War Report, he has also insulted me throughout his latest response even after I asked him to stop. AcidSnow (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to blocking the IP for personal attacks, although I'm not sure how much good it will do. In my view, it's best just to ignore him, but I can understand getting ticked off by his comments. As for the report itself, I semi'ed the article at least in part because I didn't think that blocking the IP would solve the problem. There had been at least one other IP in the same range that probably belonged to the same person making similar edits. There were other reasons as well, but I'd rather not go into them here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's true, he will probably reappear then deny that he was ever hear to begin with. Protecting the page is the best move since it squashes all his IPs in one move. I appreciate your assistance here and on other areas of Wikipedia. AcidSnow (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection is more effective than blocking for this kind of problem, as noted by User:Bbb23. If you scan down the history of Eric Holder you will see three different IPs that must be him editing in the last few days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Grazie once again, EdJohnston. AcidSnow (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Watchersonthewall.com, again

Hi - do you think that this looks like anybody we might know? (Sigh.) Regards,  Sandstein  19:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps that one too.  Sandstein  19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

To believe that the second one is User:Piandme you would have to believe that Piandme wants to undo his own edit. If this pattern continues, we'll soon have a better behavioral record to justify a new SPI filing (or to rule it out as unlikely). You consider yourself able to semiprotect? EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out that they are the same person nonetheless; their conduct has been ... rather erratic, and this could be a WP:GHBH case. Agreed that a better pattern would be preferable. I'm not sure whather I'm uninvolved enough to semiprotect, and besides, we can't realistically semiprotect every Game of Thrones-related article just because of this one guy.  Sandstein  19:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Natalie Dormer is now semiprotected per the use of information about a living person from a fan site. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

hmm, well these edits have nothing to do with me. It would be pretty stupid for me to start editing them under different accounts, because it is obvious you are going to keep a close eye on both my behaviour and articles I have recently edited. Watchersonthewall is the second largest Game of Thrones news website, and will have a large reach of readers, so it is unsurprising that others have also used it as a source, but it does seem strange that it is only just after my warning (Sorry, don't have a hypothesis behind this). If they keep doing it is easy to block them anyway, so not really a problem. I know that I have absolutely nothing to do with the edits though, so I know that I am definitely not in the wrong here (fortunately) Piandme (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI v2

Hi, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piandme? Thanks in advance,  Sandstein  14:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but if you look at SuntannedTics's contributions you'll see that they are continuing to restore Piandme's "watcheronthewalls.com" contributions. We're just being trolled here - isn't it time do indef-block that whole sock farm?  Sandstein  13:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:SuntannedTics is now blocked one week for harassment of another user. Any other admin who feels that the sock evidence is convincing can go ahead and close. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You may have seen this already

Hi, we were apparently acting at the same time to try to deal with a continued problem. In case you didn't see it, I thought I should let you know that I've issued this ANI notice. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Greco-Italian war and Battle of Greece

Hi Ed. I would like to know if the topics of Greco-Italian war and the Battle of Greece are covered under ARBMAC. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

These events took place in the WP:BALKANS so they are covered. EdJohnston (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought so but due to the Italian-German components I thought I'd ask. Thank you very much Ed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits

Hi EdJohnston. I have a few fairly small/easy Request Edits wandering around and I was wondering if you had a few minutes to take a look. There's a correction request regarding revenue here (correcting an error I myself made) and updating that a local politician was re-elected by a landslide updates here, as well as a few corrections, section consolidations and misc stuff at the Publishers Clearing House page here. If you have a bit of time to take a look at them I'd be appreciative! CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

AN3

Ed, do you have an opinion on whether I should change my original findings based on my error? On the one hand, based on my warning, PM is not allowed to touch the article, and the other editor's version is presently in place. OTOH, PM has a history of thinking that edit warring is justified if he doesn't agree with another editor, and in this case he was reverted by two editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, sorry I overlooked your question. Since User:Prisonermonkeys got blocked anyway for a subsequent revert the issue must now be moot. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the butt-in, but I thought I should point out, User:Prisonermonkeys has libeled about me in his responses to your comments about how his ban is justified. I tried to correct the record but my comments were removed by Prisonermonkeys. Should you make any more comments on his talk page, I just ask you take this into account. Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting, Thegreyanomaly. PM is just continuing to repeat the same points he made before. Saying that you and I "never assumed good faith in the edit" is hardly "libel". And he's allowed to remove your comments. I think the best thing you could do at this point is stay away from his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, look at two things I noted in the reverted comment. He is claiming that I was intending to violate the 3RR when I was subjecting myself to a 2RR, and then he is claiming I was not fessing up for reverting logged out and thus implying I was trying to misrepresent my number of reverts. Anyways, I am staying away from his talk page now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston (and Bbb23), I am trying to stay away from their talk page, but they just pinged me with a long, uncivil, attacking rant [3]. I will be reporting them momentarily on whichever admin noticeboard for repeated incivility. Can one of you please do something about them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

They have been reported here Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Namedropping

I mentioned your name at User talk:Dougweller as being one of the probably best candidates I can think of to fill the current ArbCom vacancies. I know you probably don't actually want to run, because you give the impression of being a basically sane person not particularly into masochism, but I still think you might be one of the few potential candidates I can think of out there who I can be fairly sure wouldn't do something to embarrass himself if elected. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GS/GG/E

I know you're active at WP:AE, so I figured I'd ask if you'd be willing to watch the Gamergate general sanctions enforcement page, at WP:GS/GG/E. There is currently a request there. I'm sure you're aware that a great amount of disruption has come from this subject area, and these sanctions are presently the only way we have to deal with it. Prudent administrative action will be a great help in alleviating the nonsense, until ArbCom decides what to do with the case. RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The new page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement looks like a great idea. The format of the page is oddly familiar.. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I based it off the existing AE format, and also off of previous general sanctions enforcement pages, such as this one. Quite frankly, the sheer amount of intransigence in this Gamergate mess (which strikes me as a storm in a teacup, but never mind that), and its repeated mucking up of AN/I made such a page seem like a necessity, and a few enforcing administrators agreed. Hence, I obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate close

I sympathize with your close on the Gamergate issue, but want to point out a catch-22 that you may have created.

Suppose one were a woman in the game industry who (a) wanted to complain about BLP and user conduct issues, and (b) did not wish to be subjected to threats of assault, rape, and murder, or to have one’s past sexual history publicized. If one’s wikipedia handle is -- or might conceivably become -- tied to your professional identity, you have established that the special community sanctions are toothless -- there's no reasonable way to lodge a complaint. If you use an IP account, you're a sock; if you ask a friend to do it, you're violating WP:CANVASS, and if you do it under your own name, your safety is at risk. That's a hell of a forked stick.

I intend to drop this now -- I think it's pretty clear that the sanctions are a failure and that Arbcom will try its hand, and I can’t say I'm sanguine about the outcome of that process, either. But I do think it is a problem and if, heaven forfend, this miserable controversy gets hot again, it places the project in a hell of a bind. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Anybody who shows up at an admin board with no track record, wanting sanctions against another party, might be in the same position. The person is free to explain their background and how they come to be interested in the controversy if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about template warning about impending breach of 3RR

If an editor says he does not wish to receive edit-warring note, but does commit 3 reverts, are we allowed to post the warning on the talk page or it is assumed that the user is aware -- the question is because it is manadatory to warn before filing a report. This is in reference to this warning I had put last time with regards to this case. Same editor recently reverted another editor twice and me once in few hours which prompted me to put a note on his talk page. But he says he does not wish to receive such warning. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Floquenbeam had once told that there is no need to warn regular editor, you can directly report them. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Also when I was blocked for edit warring, I had no warning prior 3-4 reverts. I was told by 2 admins that any user who has warned others about edit warring doesn't require any warning. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra, if you believe an editor is about to break 3RR I think you can warn them on their user talk regardless of their preferences. If you have recently warned them about the same article then you might not bother to do so. If they are an experienced editor it is better to write them a handwritten note instead of a template. It says at WP:AN3 that you must notify anyone you file a report on. This might be in addition to your 3RR warning. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

He's back. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kelly

How do I proceed here, Ed? The rv cycle is deeply undesirable, but I am unable to engage in discussion on sourced content w/o it devolving to WP:NPA. Do I WP:THIRD, WP:DRN, WP:RFC/USER etc?? The WP:DR processes are cumbersome, and their descriptions make one uncertain if applicable for any given circumstance (hooray, bureaucracy!). I am inclined to just WP:AN3 again out of fatigue and familiarity. Is there anything involving this that I myself am doing incorrectly? -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The BLP issues are messy, which deters admins from taking quick or simple actions. Can you list the prior discussions you've participated in? And link to any filings at admin boards? The AN3 report that I closed was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Wearypoet reported by User:Dsprc (Result: Two articles protected). EdJohnston (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Malakia

The St Petersburg IP is back on Malakia with his imaginative editing and his refusal to discuss on Talk. Should the protection that you applied on 14 May 2014 (cf. your Talk-page comment) be renewed? Esoglou (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Nikthestunned's talk page. --19:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

You recently topic-banned HCPUNXKID from Ukraine-Russia nonsense, as I'm sure you remember. This editor has already violated his topic ban, and displayed battleground behaviour to the extreme with this comment. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So, not only I received a disproportionate punishment that bans any edit on Ukrainian or Russian related articles, but also I cant speak against it on personal talk pages?!?!? If that's true, this is clear CENSORSHIP, I've been unjustly punished and I cant even protest against it, simply incredible. Not to mention the quickness by some editors on reporting on me, are you surveilling me or what? It seems so, all the combined effort by the same group of editors in order to try to block me, if that's not taking it personal, tell me what it is, how not think about a lobby...--HCPUNXKID 16:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that ArmijaDonetsk targeted me months ago, I had his talk page watched. Your overture to a long gone editor was quite wrong-hearted. I believe the wording of your topic ban is clear: "all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages". RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"This covers both political and military matters and applies on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards". I understand that this refers to articles talk pages, not to users personal talk pages, so that must be clarified. If Im going to be banned, I think I must be told what can and what I cant edit. And of course I maintain that if I cant speak against that ban in personal talk pages (not even in mine's?), that simply CENSORSHIP, as that's trying to silence my POV. The battleground allegation is weak, as I didnt mention any concrete user but a group of them, if someone felt targeted, he/she should think why he/she felt that way...--HCPUNXKID 17:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It clearly says "all pages of Wikipedia". RGloucester — ☎ 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"All pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards" includes user talk pages, as should be evident from the wording. You are still allowed to appeal your ban. See Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. The section called 'Template documentation' explains how to use it. Let me know if you want to appeal and need any assistance with the form. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: This user has once again broken their topic ban, despite the clarity provided above. This time, he/she asked another editor to proxy for him/her. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:HCPUNXKID is now blocked one week for topic ban violation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. RGloucester — ☎ 04:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dcbanners and Sonic Boom (TV series) again

I've just relisted this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dcbanners_reported_by_User:Scalhotrod.2C_2nd_report_for_same_activity.2C_same_article, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your very tactful and diplomatic resolution to this, I'm actually glad that the User was not blocked. I really was not intending to be such a stickler for Policy, but I've been bashed enough for not discussing issues that I could not just ignore the situation. I have spent enough time patrolling the Special:PendingChanges list to see how easily articles can be abused when sources are missing and unsourced content is added. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this good or bad?

A user who has been topic banned, and who was explicitly warned, has started discussing matters in a less than appropriate way. He doesn't mention the subject by name, but it is clear as to what he is talking about. This behaviour is pure disruption, and I cannot believe that it has any place on Wikipedia, topic ban or no topic ban. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If DSA's statement truly offends you you should take it up with an Arbcom clerk. I doubt that Arbcom will find his statement persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that it offends me, so much as that it is out-of-line and unproductive. He's now started an absurd AN/I request, and named me as a party. It doesn't mention you by name, but I'm sure the "cronies" and "Kangaroo courts" nonsense is meant to apply to you as much as to any of the other sysops he's named. RGloucester — ☎ 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I can survive the abuse. Wait and see; ANI will sometimes do the right thing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rape, Sodomy, Gamergate

In the wake of yesterday's sanctions close, the question of "rape" vs. sodomy" has been joined (apparently for the first time) on the Talk page. Normally, this would be a good outcome. In practice, we have begun with an admin stating that “ one static image cannot readily imply rape” [[4]]. Oh dear. If you have any advice for how to to approach this -- AN/I? Back to sanctions? Somewhere else? -- I'd be grateful. And if it's this bad with the page protected, what’s going to break loose when protection ends tomorrow? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The nuances of what some image could have meant to a diffuse bunch of people need to be filtered through reliable sources. In the unlikely event that some reliable source declares that 4chan supports rape, then we could take note of it. A chain such as 'A thinks that B believes C' is not very reliable. You would like to get a direct quote from B as to what they think which in this case is unlikely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just as a comment on your second statement at the GG GS page on my case (which I do appreciate the advice too): at the time I put that RFC in, it was still early in GG and looking back, that was the wrong question to ask at the time (plus I suck at wordsmithing myself so the phrasing probably didn't come out the way I expected); my intent wasn't to question RS, but how much of the RS to include in the article considering the viewpoints. Now that this is two months older, and have 20/20 hindsight, I'll look to see what a good RFC might be, but I will wait until after ArbCom as that (I hope) will adjust how we should approach the page.
I will also say that if there is any concern that I'm engaging offsite users to influence any part of Wikipedia's GG coverage/GS page/ArbCom case/whatnot (particularly in light of the current remarks Mark is saying about offsite harassment), I will absolutely be happy to demonstrate whatever I can and provide whatever may be needed to show that I am not engaging these groups. I'm fully aware that these groups see me as an "ally" in that I'm more neutral than the other editors on that GG page, and thus one way to read those comments might seem that I'm involved in that manner, but I purposely have avoided any engagement with any of these groups for good reason. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me that you might be dealing with offsite users. The main worry is that when we see you consistently taking what seems to be a pro-GG position (and that comes up again and again) it looks like you have some kind of a personal mission that is different from the goals of Wikipedia. If all of us were trying to achieve the most neutral article it makes me wonder why you would always be leaning in the same direction. (Surely we can all read the same sources). Even the usual Wikipedia process for disputes has the assumption that the person whose views don't wind up getting consensus will eventually step back. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Gone

Yes, I've left Wikipedia. But late last night I received word that the blowback from this sordid and shameful affair had triggered outrage on 8chan. I was receiving numerous messages on various media and a quick examination of the 8chan board revealed lots of very angry messages and images directed at me. I have seen a number of such threads directed at colleagues, some of which have concluded with threats of violence. That didn't happen here, as far as I can see -- I've not read carefully and I can’t parse all the coded references and images.

As a precaution, I sent the board transcript to ArbCom and to a trusted admin. To avoid any appearance of underhandedness, I mentioned that I had done so on the Sanction page in a hasty extension to my own section. A hostile editor decided it ought to be a separate section and moved it.

I cannot believe you see nothing wrong with the McCarthyist comment; I literally cannot see how it can be defended. But that's no longer my problem. I've written at some length on my weblog, and will probably write in more detail at greater leisure in some other forum.

Until this affair, my impression had been that you are a sensible and thoughtful fellow; I wish you my best, though in light of its awful behavior I can no longer wish that for Wikipedia. Please don’t hesitate to email if I can be of any service. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your intentions seem good, but too much indignation can be a handicap if you want to get anything done. I see effort on the article being wasted because people are too angry to come to sensible compromises that reflect the sources and will appear objective to outsiders. On Wikipedia, patience and calmness are rewarded. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In this case, they're rewarded by having their sex life endlessly rehashed, over and over again. But only if you're a woman, because that's the point of the whole campaign. BTW They're edit warring the draft as we speak. MarkBernstein (talk)

For a person who is trying to leave Wikipedia, you are surprisingly active. In my opinion you could avoid some trouble if you would agree to take a temporary break from GG matters. Offer to take a hiatus, state the limits you choose and then stick to it. You could still do whatever you want to do off-wiki. If you continue your activities here more people are likely to complain. Admins will have to decide between your obvious good faith and the confusion it is creating. User:Ryulong sort of agreed to take break on 19 November in a post on an Arbcom page though he still responds to criticism. Agreeing to step away for a bit might invigorate your reputation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I remain interested in Wikipedia -- I'll probably write a book chapter on this affair and perhaps a Web Science paper. I'm saying a few farewells -- you've been a decent sort before. I'm sorry I confuse admins; the matter is crystal clear to me, and was decided on the day when Joseph Welch asked McCarthy on a directly analogous matter, "At long last, have you no decency?" MarkBernstein (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Cicero said the same thing, but in Latin: Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of blocking policy

I have assumed that what I experienced at AE is normal practice, so I am suggesting updating the blocking policy to reflect this. After being blocked I felt pretty badly treated as I couldn't see any policy explanation of what was happening, so rather than trying to change practice I am simply proposing to record and explain, so that other affected users at least feel they were treated consistently. Hopefully this reflects common practice as you see things as well.

Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals_-_3RR_and_1RR_blocks

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Two requests regarding GamerGate

Hi there! Long time no see. Would you mind (1) reviewing the behavior of Zakkarum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and (2) reviewing my close of this discussion on RSN regarding sources in GamerGate? If you feel the close was improper, please feel free to undo it. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your closure at WP:RSN looks reasonable to me. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have exposed Fleetham on the Admin Notice Board.

I have exposed Fleetham on the Admin Notice Board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fleetham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.35.10 (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

YoYo Games

Did you actually get to the semi-protection as listed here? I'm not seeing it yet... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What is a ban on edit warring?

I'm curious regarding Signedzzz. How does this differ from normal editing? I mentined other issues related to Boko Haram. Is any consideration to be given to them? Thanks Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Signedzzz's ban is on *all* editing in the domain of the Syrian sanctions, not just edit warring. It expires in 3 months. Boko Haram is not covered by WP:GS/SCW if that's what you're asking. Boko Haram is based in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger and Chad, not Syria. If you believe there should be new sanctions covering all Islamic extremism then you need to get consensus for them on an admin board. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Pintade#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

I simply don't know. The only defense we have is the classic "I'm here to right great wrongs so it's ok" which is never helpful and I again ask if someone can convince him that everyone who disagrees isn't destroying his work but if he's simply unwilling to think that way, maybe a topic ban to get him to stop working on a topic that's all about his personal knowledge and beliefs and with other people will help. I'd rather gut all the articles and start rather than keep on looking through to figure out what the actual string of search terms for each "reference" is actually supposed to be referring to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

appealing my ban

Hi. I don't understand the rationale behind my ban. It was not "edit warring" - I removed a phrase on 3 occasions over the course of weeks, following repeated discussions in which it emerged repeatedly that no sources back up the statement. The phrase is purely fictional and therefore has no place within an encyclopaedia. I fail to see why an administrator of an encyclopaedia would ban someone who tries to remove something that no one denies is pure fiction, from any article. As I say, if it was "edit-warring", that would make sense. If it is EW to remove something fictional, why is it not EW to replace the same lie? And what did you mean by "If you had not lost so much credibility, you might have proposed to abide by the result of an WP:RFC."? And how does my "credibility" affect whether this encyclopaedia should contain fact or fiction? zzz (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You continued to remove a phrase from the lead even though you were constantly reverted and you could not point to anywhere on the talk page where a consensus supported your change. You believed the statement was unsourced but others did not agree. The goal of WP:AN3 is to stop edit wars. I invited you to make some other proposal for resolving the matter but your response was "It's clearly not worth the effort, so I will leave the article alone, from now on. I really have no interest in it - it's just an article in dire need of improvement." (20:37 on 3 December). The topic ban is at least a workable method of stopping the edit war. WP:GS/SCW explains how your ban can be appealed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. You say "constantly reverted": but, I only removed it 3 times in as many weeks. How is "three times" constantly"? "others did not agree": so why did they not provide a source? It is not a matter of agreeing or not, it is just a matter of fact vs. fiction. "It's clearly not worth the effort": Every time (3 times) I removed it I was accused of edit warring. So this is a reasonable statement, especially after you told me I had lost "credibility". You suggested "a simple offer from you to stay away from the topic (both article and talk page) for at least two months might be considered.": in other words, a self-imposed ban. Here is another editor agreeing with me (I don't see how editors agreeing is relevant anyway, since it is either in a source or, in this case it isn't.) But I get banned from editing. I don't understand how this works. If I was edit warring by removing it 3 times, the editor who immediately added it back must surely be at least equally guilty? Or, is it just that whoever complains to the noticeboard first is assumed to be right?

It says at WP:GS/SCW "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard." How should I proceed: where is "the appropriate administrators' noticeboard"? zzz (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't perceive you as actually offering an agreement to stay away from the article. Perhaps I was wrong. In any case you can appeal your ban at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. zzz (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Amherst Student article on Gamergate

I've provided a link to an archive of the article in question to Wordsmith and I just noticed you also were unable to review it. I can send it to you via Wiki email for review if you like. (I don't wish to post a live link here for the obvious reasons.) ReynTime (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your caution is wise. Since my last post I was able to find a link to the article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

GG enforcement page comments

Hello EdJohnston, in response to this comment, the problems do not just extend to the CHS page but also the central GamerGate page as shown by the presented diffs. You cite DHeyward's comments in this section as evidence of DHeyward's policy compliant behavior when in fact his comments in that section show the exact opposite. They show him proposing a phrasing about Sommers' critics (the sentence that starts with "Sommers' critics generally do not distinguish...") based entirely on misrepresentation of the three sources (one of which is a Twitter post by Sommers herself!). The misuse of sources is one example of what I believe to be a pattern of disruptive behavior but I have cited better examples on the enforcement page. It concerns me that you seem to have considered only some of the diffs and only perfunctorily. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is a misrepresentation have you ever made that point on the article talk page? Since I don't have the sources this is hard for me to check. Do you have the sources? If so can you quote them? EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, because his proposal was rejected by other editors and because I thought that other behaviors (which I described on the GG enforcement page) were more problematic. Do I have the sources and can I quote them? Always. DHeyward used three sources for the statements about critics, Douglas, Kimmel and a Twitter post by Sommers.

• Douglas writes: "Indeed, eight years earlier, career antifeminist Christina Hoff Sommers huffed in her book, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, that girls were getting way too much attention..."
• Kimmel writes: "Elementary schools are, we read, “anti-boy”—emphasizing reading and restricting the movements of young boys. They “feminize” boys, forcing active, healthy, and naturally exuberant boys to conform to a regime of obedience, “pathologizing what is simply normal for boys,” as one psychologist puts it. Schools are an “inhospitable” environment for boys, writes Christina Hoff Sommers, where their natural propensities for rough-and-tumble play, competition, aggression, and rambunctious violence are cast as social problems in the making... What’s wrong with this picture? Well, for one thing, it creates a false opposition between girls and boys, ..."
• Sommers writes: "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an "opponent" of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always."

As you can see, none of the three sources used support DHeyward's statement "Sommers' critics generally do not distinguish between equity and gender feminists and argue the desirable outcome of both views are the same." He misrepresented the sources, as he did before and after that. But, again, I believe that his other behaviors are more disruptive. User:The Wordsmith's close of the discussion concerning DHeyward's editing and your intervention and presentation of one constructive comment which turned out to be more evidence of policy violation isn't going to help this project. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You should consider adding these comments to your statement at WP:GGE to see if you can persuade the others. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You know very well that the enforcement request was closed. You said that it was hard for you to check DHeyward's use of sources and asked me to provide the sources and quotes. I did. But then you don't check or don't wish to discuss the sources and instead tell me to go tell it someone and someplace else. Yes, DHeyward did misrepresent the sources even in the one contribution that you portrayed as constructive. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you could interpret User:The Wordsmith's comment as a closure. (Though there's no collapse box). If so then it's indeed too late. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but did you check the sources and can you explain how DHeyward's proposal is not a misrepresentation of the three sources? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

173.58.213.175

Hello.

I know you've dealt with this user before and therefore I wanted to come to your talk page to discuss his edits. On at least a couple of occasions I have made good faith reverts of edits which I considered to be unconstructive, which had been undone for no apparent reason. To avoid an edit war, I stopped reverting quickly. I was interested, however, in discussing his actions with some other involved users since it isn't quite enough to file an ANI report. Please let me know if you have any comment regarding this matter. Thanks in advance. 2602:304:59B8:1F39:2143:EBA9:B5A5:E29A (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that I blocked him for one month last July. But if you perceive new problems, please provide diffs of what you see. And what is your own connection to this editor? You have signed with an IP has made no other edits. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Since implementation of IPv6 my IP address changes frequently. I have also edited on 2602:304:59B8:7839:2197:29E4:FF78:574B (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have no direct connections to the editor, other than that my edits were reverted for no apparent reason. I regularly fight vandalism on Wikipedia without logging in. In regards to your question about recent issues, please refer to Special:Contributions/173.58.213.175. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F39:2143:EBA9:B5A5:E29A (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"my edits were reverted for no apparent reason." I can't act on this unless you tell me which edits. I'm not about to review their entire contribution history hunting for truffles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. It was the two most recent edits: diff 636950435, diff 636950524. However, I was also recommending a basic look at the contribution history as well to see the context. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F39:2143:EBA9:B5A5:E29A (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have warned the IP for edit warring at Dave Zirin here. Let me know if you see any further problems. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate typo

[5] now -> not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

BIO on Professor George Kline has been published

Just and FYI. Also what should be done about the draft? LoveMonkey 15:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I did a history merge and deleted the old article at WP:Drafts/George Kline so everything is fixed up now. In the future, when you move a draft to main space, it is better to use the 'Move' tab. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank You Again. LoveMonkey 16:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

198.189.184.243

Hello, you've had some dealings with IP, which was one of the many socks of Blastikus (talk · contribs). Since there has been recent activity from this person, I have proposed a site ban, however I wonder if the proposal is too long or otherwise lacks appeal, as it has not received attention so far. Maybe there's something I'm missing about the process. Manul 14:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This IP is connected to Orthomolecular medicine and the person is banned from Fringe science. You've updated the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/198.189.184.243#03 December 2014. While you are waiting to see if a ban will be imposed, consider making sure that the SPI is as well organized as possible. Do you know which is the oldest registered account? Is it Blastikus? The SPI clerks seem to be quite willing to rename these reports, and it might be easier to recall this case in the future if it's named after an account not an IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm I didn't consider adding to the Blasikus SPI since I saw the recent activity as a continuance of the newer 198.189.184.243 case. In the latest report I say that the new master is Blastikus. It's a matter of "move this there" versus "move that here" -- I happened to pick the former. It appears you are saying that the latter is more conventional. I'll go ahead and move it to the Blastikus case unless you think it would be better to let it be. Manul 16:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's better for you to leave a note in the SPI asking for a clerk to move it. See User talk:Bbb23#Did I break anything by moving an SPI report?. User:Bbb23 points out that templates need to be updated if a case is moved. Also they might not agree with your proposed renaming. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

By saying "new master is Blastikus" in the SPI, I thought I was doing just that? Doesn't that tell the clerk to move it? I'm afraid I might be missing something. Manul 16:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like we are in agreement. I was afraid you were going to use the 'Move page' button on the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Things were so much easier when SPIs would be handled within a day, if not hours. Now it can take weeks for an SPI to close. This presents a Catch-22: if one waits for an SPI to close, the activity is no longer current and nobody cares. On the other hand, until the SPI closes there is naturally a hesitation to take action. A while back I ran into this problem while trying to stop false personal attacks from a user.

The Blastikus AN is about to be archived. Should I wait for the SPI to close and then un-archive the AN discussion? Since Blastikus is extremely disruptive whenever he reappears, I figured a ban would be the natural next step. Doing nothing it always an option, but that option has already been taken several times in the past. Manul 23:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You've collected quite a bit of evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/198.189.184.243. Do you have some time to be more explicit about what action you want? For example, tell us which of the socks are still editing. I occasionally do things at SPI but I prefer cases where the logic for admin action is clear. In my opinion there is no reason to un-archive the AN discussion which is now at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Proposed site ban for Blastikus. Admins are likely to block any recognizable incarnations of this guy whenever he does return. The only question is how securely we can make the identification. I'll try to get some time to comment at the SPI in the next two days. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Question re WP:ANI#User:Fleetham- Tendentious editor continues reverting

Hi EdJohnston, do you know why the WP:ANI#User:Fleetham was never formally closed/resolved?

I saw your comment, in which you noted that Fleetham was editwarring in November, but I didnt know you are an administrator, and so didnt ask earlier. May I ask why you did not formally close the case? why did the recognition of 5 reverts in 24 h not have any consequences ? We never got a resolution.

Fleetham continues to pursue WP:POV and after repeatedly announcing to revert a section in question, he did it, refuses discussion, reiterates WP:IDONTHEAR and, if his behavior is pointed out, accuses others of WP:PA or ironically "unwillingness to discuss". To me this looks like an abuse of process.

Today, he violated WP:3R: [6] [7] [8]

Today's edit war warnings: by me by Ladislav Mecir

With this in mind, please advise what to do next. I ve looked at WP:DDE. Can WP:ANI#User:Fleetham be rolled up again ?(I have no experience in this) or do you suggest WP:RFC/U ?

I hesitate to report this only to 3RRN, because it's more than 3RR, but a persistent pattern of a WP:DE and a 24 h, 1 week or 1 month block is unlikely to help. Thank you. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't advise that you reopen the ANI. It's too long for someone without awareness of the dispute to be tempted to participate. Why not see if any regular editor of Talk:Bitcoin wants to join you in a discussion of how to solve this? I noticed User:Laser brain made a comment in the ANI. He is an admin and is also experienced with content work. If he is too busy, perhaps you can find some other experienced editor. I'd recommend creating an WP:RFC to solve whatever dispute is most pressing. A content RfC is less painful than an WP:RFC/U and it should be easier to get people to participate. If agreement is reached in an RfC and, for any reason, User:Fleetham won't accept the result then it is easy for admins to proceed from there. Bitcoin is a difficult article and it's not surprising to have disputes there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, and so quickly. I see why no ANI. So you do not advise 3RRN ?

Can you please say why you did not formally close the case? Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI reports often expire without action if they are long or if it seems there is some case for both sides. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hello EdJohnston, I've noticed you warned editor Uishaki about his Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban[9] in the past, he has violated it[10] again and he's edit warring on this article regarding Israel related content. Thanks. Infantom (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston, sorry to interrupt you with this, but i can't take it somewhere else now since it would be forum-phishing. The user continues with the edit war activity while violating the topic ban and won't stop, as always, until he's warned. Is there anything you can do? Thanks. Infantom (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhargava

You have put page Bhargava under protection. dispute is about whether bhargavas are Brahmans or vaishy. Sevaral persons have given references which show bhargavs are Brahmans, but your page still writes them as Vaishy. Why ? It looks wikipedia has blocked all editors who called bhargavs brahman and allow only those who call them Vaishy. You shuld stop this non sense. bhargava are brahmans. You should correct the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.194.39 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhargava is under WP:GS/Caste. The community has authorized sanctions for these articles, since they often suffer from promotional editing and bad sources. If you have WP:Reliable sources to add about the Bhargavas, feel free to provide them and to make your argument on the talk page. As an IP you can still edit the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have given 10 citations on page Bhargava which state that Bhargava is a Brahmin community. But Sitush has rejected all. please look in to this.Bhargavaflame (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC):

It is quite painful that you put sanctions on my efforts to reach consensus on caste of Bhargavas, whether they are Brahmins or Vaishys. All the sources given in English language, 10 of them, have been rejected as unreliable for different reasons, most of them for the reason of poor English ! Sources written in Hindi of cource, you won't accept here. So for reliablity, the major requirement now is that source should be written in 'chaste English'. I never knew it. I never found this requirement mentioned any where. You should mention this requirement often so that non-English country editors could decide whether to write some thing on Wikipedia at all. By demanding sources in chaste English, you have only made fun of editors and authors from non-English countries, rather than looking seriously for verifiable and reliable sources on any page. If chaste-English is the first requitement for any source, I am afraid, I'll have to withdraw from here as Indian History authors may not have written in British chaste English. Please advise.Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

EW report

I have just reverted one of the edit by SandyGeorgia[11], as I thought that we also keep withdrawn report, just like you had mentioned once[12] before. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it odd that it is taking (so far) five hours for an AN3 to be actioned? In the intermin, over at WP:ENI, an admin protected the article and sent all the students off to a sandbox, after the which the edit-warring student finally made his first ever talk page post, pleading to have "his" article back, since he needs to submit it tomorrow for a grade. Ah, the fun. Anyway, it doesn't really matter if the student is blocked at this late stage, since in my experience, students never return once their course work is submitted, and the article is now protected. But I removed the AN3 out of general frustration that it was still there when I came back from a nice long dinner out:) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing and explaining SandyGeorgia, I only informed EdJohnston so that he can know the reason behind my edit and you may further discuss over here as others hardly ever use the board's talk(page) for discussing about edit-warring cases. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I understood that ... I was just taking advantage of your ping to chat with EdJohnston, since I so rarely get to spend time with the more sane among us :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Most likely this issue is now addressed. In most cases, getting a five-hour response at WP:AN3 would be very good. Your arguments suggest we should respond more vigorously when misguided article edits happen as a result of student programs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement templates

What if same page falls under 2 types arbcom sanctions, you can insert both templates on the user's talk(page) as a reminder? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hard to answer this without knowing which article you are talking about. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda, under Wikipedia:ARB/PS and Wikipedia:ARBIND. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Better to use WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Also John should log his action on Wikipedia:ARBIND? Just like he had logged on Wikipedia:ARB/PS. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

In answer to the question you withdrew, I see no reason why you would log the same action in more than one case. That may cause confusion, due to the rule that people have to be notified of the particular case before being sanctioned under it. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, inserted the question back for ease. I agree too. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 MLS Cup Playoffs

Could you please revert the flag decorations as well? There's a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why it's not necessary. Anon has finally started to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you believe you have consensus to revert the flags, you could do it yourself. Otherwise, open a discussion and wait for the result. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on The Captive

Hey man, not sure who else to go to, but there's a big issue going on.

There have been many acts of vandalism on the page for The Captive (2014 film). I'd suggest that the page be protected for a while to get things under control since I can't do any reporting at the moment. Please respond if you can. Thanks. Theironminer (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Theironminer: I notice that another admin applied a short semiprotection which has now expired. Since I know nothing about the subject of this article, I cannot tell which edits are vandalism. Can you supply a diff? EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've now semiprotected for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - Theironminer (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet at WP:AN3

Hey, Ed, two reports against this editor have been filed. You blocked him in August of this year and then subsequently alerted him to WP:ARBIP. Based on the reports and the editor's history, I believe he should be topic-banned rather than blocked, but I'm not sure what the scope of the ban should be. I'd appreciate your thoughts.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, EdJohnston, that I Have two reports filed against me. I hope my intentions and attitude toward Wiki is well observed by you. The conditions in which you have to block me earlier were also clear and I was very clear to abide by the decision whatever Wiki felt reasonable.

Now the situation is similar, there is one more editor joined as SPA, seem to be somewhere related with present controversy going on. As you are well aware with history, I request you to have a look at my intentions against the revision being done by me. I have tried to use talk page best to the extent. On the world wide FGM deficiency issue, the fellow is trying to use Wiki as a platform to malign particular community, which seems not fair and they seems to trap me again to make me out of their way reading comments above.

I completely agree with user like User:Qwertyus and User: Anupmehra, who are genuine third party editor and have basics of Wiki norms and helped me lot on making the matter of article to the standard of Wiki.

I am a Wiki fan and think Wiki as a wonder media available to have free, fair, self-correcting, well regularised information, on which one can trust. There are millions of articles and a lot of well-wishers to keep it well managed. I also hope to be one of them, but have limitation of lack of language control and slight short tampered because of my age and a habit of doing instant arguments, when I see something wrong.

I had many warnings from my seniors as they always dislike arguments, I had to suffer on that account remained up to the post of AGM, but they value my knowledge and sincerity toward the subject I pursue.

Being declared Dawoodi Bohra on Wiki, I have disadvantage of being pro DB, but I also have in depth knowledge about the community and at least don’t want to misguide viewer on the subject and should encourage in reforms if I am helpful doing that.

Sorry, I am bit boring but the comment above given by Bbb 23 seems to dishearten me , thinking myself not worth / not of any help to Wiki to achieve its goal. I feel that there should be persons guarding the Wiki topics on which they have internal knowledge, and the topics should also to be up to wiki standard. Being a Fatimid follower I have tried to streamlined all the topics related, and tried to do justice with them. Any way whatever decision Wiki takes, I will honour.--Md iet (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if Summichum is WP:TOPICBANned. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Md iet is personally too close to the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra to be able to edit neutrally. The best action is probably an indefinite topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra broadly construed, and possibly more. This will take some study, so I'll have to come back to this in a few hours when I have some time. Whether the topic of Female circumcision among the Dawoodi Bohra is adequately referenced and whether it should be referred to as Female genital mutilation is a matter for editor consensus, after looking at how the same topic is referred to in other articles. In fact, the first of these titles (circumcision) is currently a redirect to the second, which might suggest that the latter is the standard term on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ed and Bbb23, two reports against me have been filed at WP:AN3 and you have not taken much time on decision you decided. Hope you have studied the reports in depth and considered comments I made here above.

I got dishearten by comments of Bbb23 and appealed. I don't know, I am feeling surprised that what blunder these two WP:AN3 has revealed that you were so convinced and compelled to take a decision in such a hurry.

I have also committment to abide by Wiki norms and tried my best to cooperate with editor like User:Qwertyus and User: AnupMehra, but I am surprised that as suggested by user Occultzone in place of ban on user like Summichum , I made scapegoat, in such a hurry , seems slightly unbelievable.

I request both of you to relook at both of my complain done and consider my case afresh.

I am also trying to prepare a detailed reports on these complains, which would be submitted for Wiki perusal. I accept your verdict in sporting manner. I am not in hurry to edit DB article. If my intended material are genuine it will somehow reach to WIki articles through other routes and I still believe that only true wiki standard material will sustain its place in Wiki, as it have a global watch.--Md iet (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is report on first 3RR complain against me, may like to analyse please:

Report first: [13]

Main issue : Editing regarding FGM

1.All the issue were resolved and final wording were [14] as edited by Qwertyus (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 28 November 2014

2. Even these wording of Qwertyus was not acceptable to User:PolenCelestial and he again reedited it [15].

3.The issue was regarding sentence “A 2011 Internet petition, to be delivered to Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, was the first public protest against female circumcision to emerge from the Bohra community.”[...remove link to missing reference..], which was specific about A 2011 Internet petition, which itself is referred as” www.change.org/petitions/hh-dr-syedna-ban-female-circumcision-ladkiyon-par-khatna.” , and covered under news media by the heading ‘women go online to fight Bohra circumcision trauma’.

4. When reference name the petition as ‘female circumcision’, portraying the petition as of FGM by User:PolenCelestial is not at all as per Wiki norm, distorting the specific information when general word FGM is already mentioned in previous sentence for user guidance.

5. When I corrected the word, User:PolenCelestial deleted it third time, did 3rd correction on single word [16] inspite of clearcut explanation , warning and reinstated the word FGM, non-existent in citation.

The above sequence clear-cut edit warring by User:PolenCelestial , and admin banning me on the issue, which seem not reasonable at all. Now we can see the effect of banning me. user :summichum has started his vandalism, made majority DB a faction[17], a clear cut lie . .--Md iet (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet, your name is familiar to me because it appears so frequently at the edit warring noticeboard. Besides the specific AN3 complaints, your conduct also raises long-term questions. You usually edit so as to present the Dawoodi Bohra in a favorable manner (e.g. on the female circumcision question) and you also support one side of the succession controversy. Your August 27 block was for warring at 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). Your personal loyalties seem to prevent you from editing neutrally where the Dawoodi Bohra are concerned. Your statement above doesn't persuade me that you recognize any problem with your edits, or that you will behave differently in the future. So I'm declining to lift the topic ban. As it states in the ban message, you have the right of appeal at WP:AE and you can also go to Arbcom. Let me know if you need any assistance in filling out the appeal template. As you pursue your appeals, you should consider the wisdom of speaking very clearly and limiting your posts to 200 words. Concentrate on your own behavior and don't blame others for the situation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been editing along with 'Md iet' and it has been hard for me to collaborate edits on Dawoodi Bohra related articles what he primarily chooses to contribute about. Topic ban appears to be a reasonable thing. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed my limitations and conditions prevailing, to act in this manner. This was not done with intention to disharmonise Wiki activity, only to avoid Wiki to be used a platform for propaganda by some wasted interest. I feel that I was very aggressive/impassion, and that has caused the above situation. I also agree that being DB, I have natural tilt toward DB and that has to be aggressively controlled while editing, and till consensus is reached I have to restrain myself . Even though things are very true, but may not looked true in Wikipedia manner. I have taken support in this regard from both User:Qwertyus and User: Anupmehra, and also appreciated their efforts in this regard. When my friend Anupmehra is not supporting me, whom I had faith, I am further compelled of advice of EdJohnston on 'concentrate on your own behaviour and don't blame others for the situation, and now understood that although my intentions were right, but it should also look right to others, and my aggressive nature has made all the differences. I have strong apology for my aggressive behaviour to Wiki team, whom I have discouraged unknowingly. I promise all, for further strict control on my actions and voluntarily would not do any editing on DB related pages and will only put comments on related talk pages, till User:EdJohnston himself don't recommend it for DB editing. I have decided not to use my any rights, I accept User:EdJohnston decision with full respect.--Md iet (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your topic ban includes related talk pages. Thus, commenting on them would be a violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23, I Understood the ban, these talk page commenting, I talking about is even after somebody else clear my ban.--Md iet (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel that WIki system shall take care of selective partisan activities if being done. It is my humble request to my fellow editors of taking care of aggressive editing done by a single fellow referred by me above, and restrict the activity by making those article controlled, up to date where fair consensus prevailed.--Md iet (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your continual guidance and advice, may I request you to share some guidance/alert to User:Summichum also (give a chance to learn as of us), to stop nuisance at Wiki and start getting consensus at talk pages before aggressive editing done on articles.--Md iet (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User X has started his nuisance at Wiki in a manner of a perfect opposition to DB related articles. I respect his social uplift criteria, but he has intentionally removed many useful information reader may like to read, on plea of one or another to promote his partisan activities. He has used blogs from sources like Miligazzete and Tehelka.com which are notable for publishing material of hatred among community and sectionalising politics. You may visit his editions and notices; many of them are being deleted. He is perfect case opposite of COI, may please advise him accordingly.

It is more than a week, I have realised my fault and assured you that I will not do editing on articles related to DB till you propose it again. It is my request that you may consider me of participating on DB related talk page and others at least, whenever you feel I am eligible for it.--Md iet (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There looks to be a lot of sockpuppetry about Dawoodi Bohra articles. So long as problems continue, it is not time to relax any sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, and taking care of the article so nicely. I further request to have a another look at the miscreant, doing repeated offensive activities even after reminders from Wiki Admin, and using purely partisan sources to do editing targeted for Shia community as whole.--Md iet (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage editing- Asking for an advice

• User:DeCausa is repeatedly deleting / hiding my editing in Six-Day_War talkpage. His reason: "There is no point in taking up extensive space on this page; no one else is engaging with you on it'. My view: it is a live list of quotes (and growing) which is supporting the ongoing argument in the previous section. I warned him that you offend wp:TPO :" you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.
• What for is this list of quotes?
  • I inserted this direct quote of a respectable wp:rs: "Nasser responded by taking three successive steps that made war virtually inevitable". User:DeCausa is against it and claims that " there is no scholarly consensus whether one side was at fault more than the other in increasing those tensions", but he is not supporting his claim despite my repeated reminders. So I decided to provide a list of quotes who support the "inevitable" claim, in order to show User:DeCausa that a significant number (may be majority) of wp:rs is for the "inevitable" claim and against his claim.
• Consensus: At the moment, there are 2 users for his claim (User:DeCausa, User:Dailycare), and 3 for my claim (User:Ykantor, User:Tzahy, User:WarKosign ). However, they can call other editors on demand, so eventually the consensus will not be for my claim.
• -I am not looking to win, but rather to present those 2 opposed views in the article, according to the rule, provided both are well supported. The present article is misleading and leaving opened the possibility that unprovoked Israel attacked Egypt.
  • User:DeCausa want to exile the war's reasons to other existing article, so this article will not deal with the war reasons. But since other (mentioned) featured articles includes the war reasons too, he is not right, in my opinion.
• Am I right when asking User:DeCausa not to edit / modify/ hide my talkpage edit? if so, will it be possible for you to tell him to stop this talkpage modification? Ykantor (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

EJ, I'm not sure it's clear from Ykantor's post which section he's complaining about. For info, it's this section at the top of which he has stated "Please keep for quotes only". I've collapsed it but left intact on the talk page. DeCausa (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The quotes are now in a collapse box at Talk:Six-Day War#inevitable- quotes]. Surely that option will be adequate for now. Per WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I interpret that as saying that the use of collapse boxes depends on editor consensus. If people complain that the quotes take up too much room then consider putting them in the talk page archive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ykantor (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft merge

Hello EdJohnston, would please take a look at discussions HERE and HERE and then HERE? I've already requested it to Mark Arsten, but apparently he is away, so I came here to you to help merging Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film) into The Jungle Book (2015 film) per discussions. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF, are we sure that principal photography has begun? The post in comingsoon.net seems inconclusive. The phrase 'in production' for a movie that uses animation could mean more than one thing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually production has begun in November as Russo brothers visited the set, while in December the comingsoon post is saying it's underway. There are some other sources also saying the film's in production. And about "in-production," it's mean "underway." It has already been an issue but was settled. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 06:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Now check this out. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

When are you going to do this? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask some other admin? If principal photography had actually begun you'd expect to have a clear statement. And there is no point in doing a histmerge if the article continues to be redirected frequently. If you want to find someone else to look at this, post a move request at WP:RMTR. When doing so leave a note that a histmerge is needed. (A histmerge may not be possible anyway due to parallel histories). EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But you can do this, so why don't you? Principal photography has actually begun, and look at the first edit in the article, Favre1fan93 moved the page to draft. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please ask someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

CSG International

Hi Ed. I was wondering if you had the time/interest to consider the draft I've shared on the Talk page. It's a pretty straightforward article where I'm reducing promotionalism, adding missing legal disputes and just improving the overall quality/sourcing/comprehensiveness in preparation for a GAN. CorporateM (Talk) 12:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Qazxcv1234

• Qazxcv1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please visit my talk page. I am surprised by the events. May please analyse the case. I hope you will believe on me and do the needful please.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, hope you might have had time to read and analyze my explanations. I am banned for the fault which I have not not done. Please may read them, if not yet done so. Your subsequent block(proved unjustified by me) has also expired. Please have me your final verdict, as I am serving a punishment for a fault which I did not not do at all. May please have some time for reply.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Qazxcv1234, I don't understand the comments at your talk page. But so long as you can stay completely away from articles with any connection to the Dawoodi Bohra, you should be fine. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello EdJohnston, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Avono topic ban

So you know, I mentioned the topic ban against Avono as part of the arbitration evidence. While I am not naming you or suggesting your overall conduct was problematic, if you wish to respond there feel free.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It is unclear how I could respond. It seems that you disagree with the result, but I don't know where to go from there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to respond. I am not suggesting any action be taken against you or anything, just felt it would be appropriate to notify you.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I feel an obligation to notify you about this ANI thread [18], because you were the sanctioning and closing administrator here. To my shame, I forget completely about this previous ANI discussion that had happen more than a year ago, although I remember this user (I did not interact with him also around a year). All the best, My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What's now about the compas page?

These serial protections are not effective; you need to control those IP# who at will are disturbing pages with valid references while they often have a website reference. You've been asking for sound references and you accept that anybody come to remove them? The compas references are all over in scholars' books. I don't think Wikipedia readers should wait any longer to read the whole compas articles in its integrality because of some people with no case? I have never requested any protection because there is no need when articles comes with sounds references. I would appreciate it if you could reinstate the page. Merry ChristmasPintade (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please use Talk:Compas to get consensus for any changes that you think are advisable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Turan22 socks?

I have noticed an increase in "new" editors pushing an Uzbek POV.[19][20]blocked by you[21] Siktirgitir, in particular, is blanket reverting user:Edward321 over multiple articles. All these "editors" seem to be making edits typical of Turan22. Any suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The history of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī is starting to look like a sock parade. Do you want to file these accounts at SPI? If as many as six accounts (including one who has been here since 2013) wind up needing to be blocked it will be appropriate to have an SPI. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, one of the original socks has reverted you.[22] --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC

Move away the Iranian people from category of an Ulugh Beg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangar07 (talk • contribs)

User:Siktirgitir might not be the same person as Turan22. He does leave edit summaries and has a distinctive writing style. Some IP data suggests that people who take an interest in these articles come from both Tashkent and Sweden. I'm unsure on whether O.Turani could be connected. He has an existing SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/O.Turani. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Siktirgitir appears to be a meatpuppet or simply vendetta reverting. I have never encountered O.Turani, as far as I can recall. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont know who this turan22 is? I am working on my own I do have a life besides editing wikipedia articles which kansasbear which many of you doenst seem to have sadly, Siktirgitir (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)siktirgitir

What the proper forum to report this post by Siktirgitir? [23] Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks: Siktirgitir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Why not ask User:Ricky81682? He is an admin who seems to have dealt with this part of the world before. I noticed his name on your talk page. My other idea was to raise the question at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Turan22. But since Siktirgitir is probably not a sock of the other guys the patrolling admins might not have a response. Some kind of a block is what I was thinking. Asking about Siktirgitir at ANI might or might not lead to anything useful, since it's kind of a confusing question. It's possible that the Turkmen people article might fall under WP:ARBAA2. If discretionary sanctions apply then it's more obvious what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Cassandra IP sock now sometimes editing under a user name

Hi Ed, I contacted you several times over the last couple of years regarding an IP-hopping sock who styles themself as "Cassandra" and persistently forum-posts (lately largely seeking articles to coatrack a favoured theme). You range blocked them a few times, the first being after this ANI discussion. Their main POV is maybe best summed up by their statement that "the 'scots language' is in essence a modern Scots nationalist creation myth", but they have several other themes. After all this time they have signed up with a user name, User:Cassandrathesceptic, but have continued with IP edits, in addition to the occasional edit under the user name (e.g. on the 17th they posted as user and IP). This has allowed me at least to try to engage with them in one place, on their talk page (which also serves to give some sort of a picture of their recent activities) but they persist to the extent that they have recently posted here actively protesting about the embargo on general discussion and directing attention to an essay of such discussion on their user page.

It does seem there is a block in their understanding or belief that talk pages are not for posting chat or original thought. This is indicated by posts (harmless or not) on other topics where, for instance, they speculate the need for the creation of a word at Xenophobia or theorise about women consenting to rape. I suspect the odd bit of common or garden vandalism too, although they deny it.

To complicate matters and by coincidence, another (geographically distant) IP-hopper has been posting on this talk page thread regarding Scots, increasingly tending towards POV-pushing and forum posts and essentially of a diametrically-opposed viewpoint to “Cassandra”. Thankfully they haven’t engaged in dialogue with each other yet but I dread to think of the tedium that would ensue should this happen.

I have warned Cassandra that they may be blocked but I imagine they will revert to IP-socking and coatracking across articles and, because of the seeming continued lack of belief or understanding that their editing is inappropriate, wonder if a word from another party might make them think matters over. Would you be willing to do so or can you think of another course of action which may help? All the best, Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point, persuasion is unlikely to work. Have you ever looked at Wikipedia:Long term abuse? Though I'm not sure if Cassandra qualifies yet to be included there, the entries are usually brief and well-written. For example, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dragon2016. We need something of that length if you are hoping to get more admins to look at the problem. Note the box at the upper right which says what to do if the edits resume. If you want to make an LTA entry, we should go through WP:SPI first. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I wasn't aware of LTA so I'll look into that and at preparing an SPI. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you look at this

Hi EdJohnson: Regarding the article for the film Metropolitan (1990 film), you had just closed an ANI from this week-end by a dynamically changin Ip-editor. Now the dynamically changing IP-editor is filing another ANI on the same article (just now). I did request a sock investigation (CheckUser) from two administrators talk:Versageek and CambridgeBayWeather, and I am not sure what to do about this second ANI being filed back to back. The page is protected now by CambridgeBayWeather and restored to the neutral version from last month which looked like the most neutral version. FelixRosch (TALK) 18:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Felix, please try and understand: The version that another user and myself (I do admit that I am two of the anonymous editors; my IP changes randomly, though I don't know why) are to restore is, quite simply, better written than the version you are so passionately trying to protect. There is quite simply nothing good about it. It is incomplete, badly written, and much of it, as the other anonymous editor has pointed out, appears to be written by someone with a poor grasp of English. If this is something you wrote, I respect that you want your work to stand, but from any objective viewpoint, it's bad writing, and a bad summarization of the film. Also, even after the other editor tried to engage you at the talk page, your only response was the somewhat childish "acknowledge me." Nothing that you've done has helped the Metropolitan article; it's simply resulted in a lot of complaints and emphasis on the bureaucratic procedures of Wikipedia, without improving the page content. I'll echo the other editor: If you feel that the version you want to protect is superior, explain why. Others have given their reasons against it; you've still failed to give rational support FOR it.2601:E:2000:1A3:49D5:DC30:ED1F:507F (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! From a view of your user page, I see that we share a connection to Canada. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For all of your work making Professor George Kline article a reality! LoveMonkey 18:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone posting under your name??

I am not sure what is going on at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.31.249.221 - I would guess its a copy and paste from some other location ...but as of now looks like you posted a comment when you have not at this location. -- Moxy (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually the submitter was just quoting my remark from another board. I've commented in the SPI report and suggest it should be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

md iet continuing to edit bohra articles.

The user has edited these articles recently where he is replacing word "dawoodi bohra" with a fictional "taiyabi bohra" possibly because he thinks that this will allow him to bypass the topic ban which sounds nothing but disrespect of wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moulai_Hasan_Fir&diff=639283345&oldid=639141681

He himself is author of above article and have written it as "dawoodi bohra saint" now when he is topic banned he wants to create fictional names.

he has done this to other articles too.

Also this user is indulging in aggressive sock puppetting as reported here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qazxcv1234

Summichum (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed out this violation at Md iet's talk page and another admin has decided to block him for violating his topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello EdJohnston, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

User:DonaldKronos

Would you consider reviewing your block and possibly removing talk page access? The discussion at the talk page and ANI shows the extent of the escalation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The unblock dialog appears to be beneficial, so I would not disable his talk page. The outcome of his return to editing (when the block expires) may not be good, but it can be addressed then. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi EdJohnston,

Thanks for taking a look at the content dispute, I've replied to your assessment of the situation. To be honest, I don't think protecting the page for 3 days do will anything at all. It will only delay more disputes in the long run.

(Merry Christmas) —Mentoroso (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Irredentist edits in Wikipedia pages

I found several innovations and new WIKI rules applied by some users, that violates the normal comportament of editors. These estonishing edits were made by some editors who managed to block all oponents using gang tactics and misinformation of administrators.

See next page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&action=history

(cur | prev) 17:40, 18 November 2014‎ Borsoka (talk | contribs)‎ . . (110,912 bytes) (-995)‎ . . (→‎Further reading: -books written before WWII) (cur | prev) 17:39, 18 November 2014‎ Borsoka (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,907 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (-unreferred (non-English) source; +the deleted source English version) (cur | prev) 17:36, 18 November 2014‎ Borsoka (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,906 bytes) (-158)‎ . . (→‎Secondary sources: -unreferred source which was written before WWII) (cur | prev) 17:35, 18 November 2014‎ Borsoka (talk | contribs)‎ . . (112,064 bytes) (-636)‎ . . (→‎Theory of Daco-Romanian continuity: WP:NPOV (this section presents the scholars' views, not their argumentation )) (cur | prev) 17:32, 18 November 2014‎ Borsoka (talk | contribs)‎ . . (112,700 bytes) (-634)‎ . . (→‎Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis: there is no need to add scholars' POV of their opponents' POV (X does not accept Y's view and says that Y's view is exclusivelly based on Y's biased, stupid, .. approach) .) (cur | prev) 17:28, 18 November 2014‎ Borsoka (talk | contribs)‎ . . (113,334 bytes) (-346)‎ . . (→‎Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis: unrelevant information (and the two specialist mentioned in connection with the immigrationist theory are not Hungarians - and more non-Hungarian scholar could be added))

All these edits show the real character of the editor named Borsoka. He is considered as an irredentist editor by Romanians, Ukrainian and Serb editors.

Amazing reasons to erase Romanian references and Romanian historians text: 1. Book before WW 2  ! 2. Non English reference  ! 3. Scholar's view and not scholar's argumentation (here original research of Borsoka) 4. There is no need to add scholars' POV of their opponents (but in his Hungarian history pages there are a lot of such opinions) 5. Stupid approach (new original research of Borsoka about Romanian references) 6. Specialists are not Hungarians !

Also the user Fakirbakir erased several Romanian references because he considered that he personally disagree the opinions of the Romanian author and if he disagrees an author (here about Georgescu, a historian) he erases it from WIKI pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians (section Georgescu's statement) "I have to disagree with Georgescu's statement".

There is a simple explanation of these amazing innovations and new Wikipedia rules: The two editors Borsoka and Fakirbakir act as a gang against editors from neighboring countries and act alternatively to avoid the 3RR rule and to eliminate single editors. Their scope: to emphasize the priority in history of Hungarians; this is a part of the definition of IRREDENTISM: to show the priority in history, against neigbouring countries.

All these reasons made the mentioned history article to be of very bad quality due to irredentist edits. Some Romanian journals wrote about these activities in the Wikipedia pages and so Wikipedia is considered as an unreliable source for history due to these amazing edits. Unfortunately no administrator acted against these tactics. I mentioned you the vandalism in the mentioned pages but no result.

Eurocentral (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Eurocentral, you are still under a topic ban from Hungary and Romania, per User talk:Eurocentral#Topic ban from Hungary and Romania. The ban applies to all pages of Wikipedia including talk, so you are violating your ban by mentioning the issue here. Please let this go and cease pursuing it. Your ban expires on 8 May 2015. Please also undo your recent edit to Suda which is also a ban violation since it mentions Romanians. If you are unwilling to follow your ban you can be blocked by any administrator. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

SPI notification

Because you were the blocking admin (see here:[24]), I thought you might be interested in the SPI I just filed here: [25]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverts continue

I don't know if this is the right place to post this... After you blocked MiGR25[26], the reverting in the article did not stop.
MiGR25 has not made a revert, but other users continue to in a similar matter.
First Nug (who actively tried to defend MiGR25 and divert attention to me at the AN3 ([27] [28] [29] [30]) makes reverts[31][32]. Then out of no where comes Iryna Harpy[33]. This looks like a coordinated effort.
This is not about content dispute, but reverting existing large pieces of article text without consensus, violating WP:BRD. I am not against making changes if the consensus changes, but those users revert text without it. I don't think consensus is created only by reverting.
Also, I want to note that all this reverting started with "new" user MiGR25. No one had a problem with the text before. -YMB29 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you open a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page? You yourself have made several reverts in the last couple of days. You should be looking for consensus. It's unwise to treat the previous page content as sacred. Reverting to defend it can get you in trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That is why I stopped trying to revert and came here to ask you.

I am ok with dispute resolution or RfC, but they can't just remove a large piece of text that is not new from the article without reaching a consensus. Is not that the point of WP:BRD? -YMB29 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD isn't a policy; it is only an essay. Try to find a new consensus. The current discussions at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany don't seem to have reached agreement. Here is a situation where an WP:RFC could help, since it would allow bringing in new participants. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it can help, but besides the content dispute, there is an obvious violation of wiki principals that may encourage further violations if successful.

WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and the no consensus part of it says that in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. -YMB29 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have fully protected Rape during the occupation of Germany until 27 January. Please use the talk page to discuss the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well done Ed. As so often is the case with editors who attempt to elicit admin intervention to gain the upper hand in content disputes, they tend misrepresent the facts so as to provoke admins into action. FWIW, MiGR25 hadn't actually breached 3RR and YMB29 had reverted as often as he had. MiGR25 was obviously a newby and you could have given him some latitude, he had stopped reverting and had taken the discussion to talk, but you blocked him anyway and let YMB29 off despite this[34] and the fact that he reverted as often as MiGR25 had. It is apparent that YMB29 is a veteran who knows how to push admin's buttons to get the desired result.

I obviously was drawn to the article after MiGR25's unfortunate experience and I attempted to clean this article up a bit. The two edits I made wasn't actually reverting anything, the first edit[35] cited by YMB29 as a "revert" was to summarise Senyavskaya more concisely and YMB29 essentially reverted that summary[36], the second edit[37] was remove coat-racked content added to the article some time ago. These edits represented the "B" part of BRD. The only people reverting was YMB29[38] and Iryna Harpy[39], and I end up getting a warning on my talk page with a somewhat bizarre note (with a hint of unjustified hostility): "If you are intending to be an active editor on hot topics you might rethink the black box hinting you are retired and consider archiving your talk page instead of clearing it" despite my patient discussion on Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Coat_racking. --Nug (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You were not so patient, as you reverted before the discussion began[40].

You are still defending MiGR25 and claiming that he is a new user? All you were doing is repeating his behavior, whether it is reverting under the excuse of summarizing or coat racking.

Asking an admin to intervene in such cases is the right thing to do, especially compared to getting another editor to revert on your behalf...

There is a difference between reverting to force changes through and reverting so that the content reflects consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There you go, misrepresenting the facts again. This edit [41] was to remove text that was coat racked to the article some time in the past, I don't know when. MiGR25 never touched that text. Your definition of "revert" seems to be any change to text you might have added some time in the distant past. Do you seriously expect people to analyse the last six months of an article history before making an edit. --Nug (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You just like MiGR25 were trying to remove similar pieces of text, representing the Russian view, that you don't like. You both did not care for establishing any consensus and just reverted. -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please spare me the conspiracy theories, I'm getting the impression that you have some WP:OWN issues. --Nug (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Asking others to follow the consensus policy means I have issues with WP:OWN? -YMB29 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the page protection, it was the right thing to do, but I don't understand why the last revert was allowed to stand. As I explained above, it is clearly a violation of the consensus policy. -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, Ed protected the "wrong version". You better ease up or some people may draw the conclusion that you are a veteran POV pusher who knows how to game the system. --Nug (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You are complaining about me being a POV pusher...

Following wiki policies is not POV pushing. -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Well then why don't you adhere to WP:DUE and WP:BALASPS with respect to your own edits? --Nug (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Continually accusing me of violating policies can't cover up your disruptive behavior, especially your disrespect of consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Continuing the lie that my two edits, which were not reverts as there was no previous version which these edits restored, were some how disruptive does not engender good faith nor do anything to help you build consensus. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I saw your comment on arbitration page and agree. I am leaving and will not be able to participate, however, I can see only one contributor at the moment, whose current editing is clearly problematic. He edit war on a page currently discussed by Arbcom [42], [43], while taking part in the arbitration discussion. He was warned by another admin about this previously [44]. He soapboax and accuse others in relation to this page [45],[46], and I was unable to convince him to stop here. Saying that, I may be biased, and therefore leave everything on discretion of AE administrators. Happy holidays! My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Unusual

Just a heads up. Please see this discussion on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection of article on Eurasian Economic Union

You protected that article and asked for finding a consensus on the talk page. That protection is set to expire today. I requested a sockpuppet investigation regarding User:Mentoroso - as i suspect him of having started two new accounts to seemingly find a consensus on the talk page.

I hereby ask you for extending the time of protection of that article.Knisfo (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The SPI might well lead to a result. But the best way to settle the content dispute might be a compromise on the wording of Kyrgyzstan's status. The proposal by User:Krastama looks to me like it balances the uncertainties. Assuming that it's not contradicted by sources. Your idea that Kyrgyzstan is either in or out may be too simplistic given the conflicting reports we have. I won't be enacting the edit request because I'm uncertain of the consensus, but I hope you'll consider supporting something like this yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move Template

I swear I did use the requested move template.

I don't understand what was wrong?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You edited WP:Requested moves/Current discussions, as your contribution history shows. That page is maintained by the bot. Instead you should have edited the talk page of the article you want to have moved. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Review of contributions

Hello EdJohnston. Could you please review my contributions, as requested on ANI with respect to this discussion, and offer input? Thanks. TheProfessor (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, see also: here. Thanks. TheProfessor (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this is being handled by User:Ricky81682 at User talk:Ricky81682#Guidance and assistance. My own review would probably be similar. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you look at

Skunk (weapon)'s talk page. I have been trying for some weeks to try to get User:Ashtul to stop edit-warring, and he has, though advised several times on his talk page, again broken 1R. I dislike making AE reports, and have given him another notice there and on his page, but he refuses to budge. I don't want sanctions, but an authoritative word his way might be useful (if your assessment agrees with mine, which it may not). Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I said sorry for the 24 hrs rules. The facts though, remain same. The last edit was removing information that was proved to be outdated/false and was discussed in details at Talk:Skunk_(weapon). User:Nishidani response was - "Do not use hearsday as an argument (2) B'tselem's POV is given with attribution, whether it is true or false is not relevant". Some facts have no space for POV and if B'tselem says it was only used in West Bank while there is an article and video showing contrary, Nishidani can either use sophisticated wording to reflect it or erase it all together. What if B'tselem said the world is flat? Will Nishidani quote them and say it is their POV?

If you already spend the time looking at the page, can you please give your opinion on the way it was kidnapped and any time the Skunk appears in pro-Palestinian media appears there. Maybe it should be renamed "instances Skunk was used". Nishidani mistaken it with his baby article List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014.

I too apologize for bothering you. Happy New Year.Ashtul (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, and thanks also to Ashtul. I have dropped a note explaining what may not be clear to you, on your talk page. Best wishes for the coming year to both of you.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI for now

Advice solicited. JSquish unsourced material. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK so far. This seems to be a copyright issue. If you believe there is a wider problem and you need to take the next step one of the people listed at WP:COPYCLERK might be able to help. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

About warn

I see I was warned. I want to know what will happened after the warning, Thank you. 19:45, 29 December 2014‎ Miracle dream (talk)

Technically you broke the WP:3RR rule, hence the warning. There was no block or ban, but in my closure at WP:AN3 I suggested ways that people could try to find consensus on the disputed items. If you simply continue to revert, that would be a bad idea and could lead to admin action.

Please note that your signature does not include the date. It merely says "Miracle dream (talk)" The lack of a date could interfere with bot archiving. If you go into Special:Preferences and clear the checkbox next to 'Signature' it's possible you might fix that. The other possibility is that you could be signing with only three tildes instead of four. See WP:SIGN for details. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want the date to be recognized by the archive bots, it needs to include the "(UTC)" and it should follow your name, not preceed it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Continuing from Bbb23's talk page

He seemed to indicate he was done, so I suppose I should ask you here?

I am interested, and would like some details about how to successfully participate in some of the places you mentioned, including closing certain move discussions.

My first glance at Requested Moves noticeboard seemed like it's currently full of landmines, and moves that are highly likely to be disputed if an editor hauls off and moves them.

Also, in regards to your comment about reformatting reports not being a job most people would volunteer for — Apparently I'm not most people. I've also attempted to summarize the case for the responding admin when I've not been busy trying to pretend to be the responding admin myself. I suppose those are tasks I can safely continue? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are some ideas:

1. It looks like you signed up for WP:DRN. That's a good idea.
2. For a 3RR to be easy to handle, the header should be filled in correctly (user names entered and spelled correctly, userlinks, pagelinks with article spelled correctly), which fails to be done in maybe 5-10% of cases. Usually a passing admin fixes that. If the admin is too annoyed by the low quality they sometimes close the report as malformed.
3. The diffs should be actual diffs (not versions) and preferably include the edit summary. The diffs should be reverts and not be consecutive. (Several edits in succession count as at most one revert).
4. The best format of diffs is the one generated by Twinkle's ARV tool, though it's not well documented. It includes the edit summaries and shows consecutive edits properly.

If you want to consider helping at WP:Requested moves, why not go and vote in a half-dozen of the open cases. There is a bit of a learning curve there, but you'll notice some frequent participants who do know their stuff and will answer newcomers' questions. If you want, come back here for any questions. I don't suggest trying to close any moves yourself unless you have a month or more of experience and have voted in 100 moves without causing uproar.

If you are interested in deletion issues, the safest way to get started is to work with WP:PRODs. If you think a PROD nomination is undeserved, you can remove it yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

TBan discussion

You are still watching Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_on_Nawabmalhi_and_TheSawTooth? So far, it seems like both were clearly aware of the real meaning of those references, yet they continued to misrepresent in order to push their point of view and edit war for removing issue tags. Nawabmalhi claims that I, along with rskrinath05, and one more editor are '3 Indian POV pushers', though I have never posted my nationality anywhere here. What you say? VandVictory (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not edited since holidays. Occult pulled discussion back from archive 2 times. Why is this so personal. Stop this. 3 Involved users voted to ban and 1 other user made comment. [47] Vand revised again after protection expired it is his 18th revision! ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

constitucion

Please can you review the recent edits made after your improvements to this page. Winkelvi doesnt appear to be interested in improving the article and instead seems to favour deleting large parts of interesting and viable information. Surely contributors should contribute at least equivalent of what they delete. Winkelvi seems to enjoy deleting others work. Citing reasons such as foreign language sources. Thank you in advance for your rationailty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.243.182 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a regular account that you can log in from? That could help me understand the background of your request. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

AN/I ISIS

With reference to this AN/I, I would like to ask your opinion about something, please. I have never been the subject of an AN/I before and do not know the form. I am concerned that Gregkaye is still adding comments, much of it repetition, and is now asking me close questions on matters gone over before, but I do not want to deny him the chance to cross-examine further if that is what he wishes. How far should I go in acceding to his requests for answers? Should I use my discretion in this? I have been fairly brusque so far, but I still want to be fair to him. I am also concerned that the text of the AN/I is now swelling to enormous proportions and this cannot be good for those trying to assess it. P-123 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye seems to have stopped now, so please ignore the above. P-123 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the ANi is very easy to assess. Its a whole bunch of needless back and forth, just like the activity that lead to the ANi. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: I tend to agree with you, but I had to defend myself against what I saw as quite a few unjust charges, not only at the start but unfortunately throughout. I was appalled at how it was being dragged out, but had to respond to some things as I really was concerned about some of the misrepresentations. I would like to know which of the charges are upheld by those adjudicating, but I suspect from the way things are developing that this is going to be swept aside. That will be a bad result for both of us. I think a lot of this back and forth could have been saved if I had gone ahead and requested a straightforward IBAN on both when I first suggested it, of the kind you suggested. P-123 (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

New Year's greetings and a thank you for your good work

Happy New Year, EdJohnston! Just a quick note to thank you for the hard work and civility with which you handle ARBEE affairs (and the others, of course). It's been quite a year for edit warriors considering the events in Ukraine, bringing a fresh tide of POV-ers from both sides. Let's hope that peace breaks out across the world, and that nationalist, religious, socio-political upheavals become articles about our distant past as the project evolves.

Well, I'm not even pretending to be a realist... but we can still live in hope. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic Banned Editor

This edit violates this topic ban (right near bottom) you imposed by directly editing a reference to ISIL. I've just reverted the edit. I'd almost argue that Boko Haram, as a sworn supporter and African version of ISIL, should be an off limits article for ISIL banned editors. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note at User talk:Signedzzz about the scope of his ISIL ban. There is nothing on the noticeboards to show that an ISIL ban covers Boko Haram as such. So Signedzzz is only excluded from making ISIL-related changes to other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Bhargava

• Special:Contributions/Bhargavaflame has breached his topic ban again.[48] Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your link at WP/AE

Ed - you wrote "The issues raised by User:Vrinan are more fully explained by him and others in this ANI thread (permalink)" - but the link you gave says "This page revision has been removed from the public archives." So whatever his/her explanations for his/her shocking statements, we cannot read them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the permalink. Somebody must have done a revdel at ANI which caused the specified revision to disappear. Whatever was deleted didn't seem to affect the thing I was trying to link to, so I just specified a later revision which does exist. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit count Tools request

Hi EdJohnston; From my visit to my Talk page earlier today, under the editor Tools for "Edit count" on my user account, the count summary currently indicates in my history that the account has been blocked for a month, following an erroneous report. Could I request that this be repaired or do you know who maintains this Tool for "Edit count" and its data base. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide the complete URL for the edit counter you are using? At present I get no response from http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec so I can't look into this any further. You could ask User:MusikAnimal whose name is provided at http://tools.wmflabs.org. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The counter is working again but it's not giving any reasonable results for your account. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Game Changer move

Hello. I've seen that you made the move of "Game Changer" to "Game Changer (Modern Family)" as 'per talk page discussion' and used the "Game Changer" page as a dis page. What about all the pages that were already linked to "Game Changer" before the move? All those links that were supposed to lead to the Modern Family's episode now lead to the dis page. Is there a way to change them not manually? TeamGale 06:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I did it manually but, do you know if there is a way to do it automatically? Thanks TeamGale 06:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOVE gives some advice. See also WP:WPDAB. There were some tools for link repair but I don't think they survived the demise of the Toolserver. Thanks for the work that you did. At present I'm not aware of any quicker way. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read the links you posted to see what they say. It's a problem when the links are too many. This one was kind of easy. Thanks again for answering. TeamGale 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

With Reference To WP:ARBIPA

Thank you so much for informing me!

As I am a recent editor on Wikipedia, I would require your help if that is alright with you.

I have read the discretionary sanctions. Does this means that the article Sultan Bahu is now protected?

Also, I wanted to ask that after the WP:ARBIPA, can I still edit the page if I feel there is any content required or any link needed? Because although the article is 14 years old, I am the lead editor for this article for having developed it so far and I would want to continue making it better. Thank you Neyn (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

About the Edit Warring noticeboard

Hi, I see that you closed the edit warring case, and suggested using dispute resolution, I was going to open a case there, but there is already one, and was already closed [49] The problem is that the user I'm having problems with is very close minded, and don't think I will get anything of him by arguig on his talk page (one of their first reactions was to dare me to call the admins). Putting it simply he wants sourced and competent information removed and we've been in a tiring argument in the last hours about it. He wants a source to a study that claims that around half of White Americans have varying degrees of ancestry other than European removed, and his reason to do it is because he has an study that says that Spaniards have a large variety of Haplotypes compared to Italians and what seems to be White Americans from Utah, he has also talked about how Spaniards are "racially impurer" and what not (claims and mentality that I think are out of place on Wikipedia). I got tired of going on circles and asked him what has that to do with the other study he wants removed to begin with, and keeps saying that it must be removed because apparently he regards Spaniards as impurer, I don't see what has that to do with the other study, or why it is a reason to remove it, when that section talks about the genetic variety and different racial perceptions of the United States and Mexico and if you check the section it looks "cutted" and incomplete, and that's not the only source there is, I added a source from a book some time ago that addresses these themes, but he removed it aswell, and don't wants any of it back because Spaniards are "less European", what do you think? Maybe is because I'm on the defending side, but in my opinion his posture isn't apropiated, and the reasons he is removing the material aren't either, in my opinion is not about debating which posture is correct, because his argument to remove the information is that spaniards are "less pure" [50] and Latin Americans are "diluted Spaniards"[51]. I wonder what is the posture of Wikipedia towards such "infounded racism". For one I'm getting bored of going on circles with him, because that's nowhere close to be a competent argument to remove information, and when confronted just throws walls of text, moves the goalpost and says again and again that my sources are from fake blogs when it's a genetic study study published in a medical news website [52] and books. What do you think? Aergas (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the details of the content. But you might be interested to look at White Brazilian. That article caused a big uproar on the admin boards and was fully protected for more than a month at the end of 2009. Finally it got straightened out because of a good content writer who did a lot of research and was able to persuade people to support his changes. It sounds like you plan to work more on Mexicans of European descent. If you hope to see it through to consensus you'll need a lot of patience. EdJohnston (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about using the same kind of entrance that White American has, now that I see the White Brazilian page, I think that an entrance like "White Mexican is a Mexican citizen from European descent or origin" is the best way to go. I think that could solve the warring over a the entrance of the article, and the section of the body the other editor keeps removing, although the issue with the study and the book citation that he wants removed continues, I don't think it is something that requires any debate over it, because his reason is that he regards Spaniards as "impure", that's not a good reason to remove anything at all, the edit history of the article has been going without any incident, on my time here there wasn't any big problem until Alon12 started editing in late december, and like I told you before,and I thinkthat rather than convincing him of anything (because he is totally closed) I will need the backup of other editors or an administrator. Aergas (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The main issue with your Agenda, Aergas, is that the 'white brazilian' page, doesn't bother to compare itself to 'white americans', you are purposefully trying to contort that message using ill-sourced biased propaganda to self-satisfy your point of view. Yet the actual genetic data as attested in comprehensive studies provided by genetic journals, shows the opposite as I demonstrated to you in my talk page. You could not even comprehend mere abbreviations from an actual scientific journal, you simply cherry-pick quotes from non-primary sources, which are not even relevant to what you claim. So, even if white americans are x% european, iberians are less, as actual genetic studies directly comparing iberians and white americans, have proven iberians to be more admixed. Iberians and Spaniards are far more genetically admixed than 'white americans', so it makes no sense to even mention white americans at all in the 'mexicans of european descent' page, you are trying to make a fallacious comparison, which is of little relevance and should not even exist. There is no real purpose for making such claims about 'white americans' on the 'mexicans of european descent' page in the first place, and secondly, it is inaccurate, as iberians and their descendants are more admixed than those white americans, in any case. So it would be a moot point. The original page of 'mexicans of european descent' from over a year back, never mentioned 'mexicans of european descent' being full-european, it rather said predominant. There was also no fallacious comparison with white americans, you added both of those elements to the article, while providing ill-sourced and inaccurate references from blogs, which do not actually reflect the content contained therein. I've genuinely suggested for you to improve your comprehension of the english language. Alon12 (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So far, only User:Alon12 has used the talk page at Talk:Mexicans of European descent to explain their thinking. I hope to see a discussion take place there before either of you reverts again. You can begin discussions now, if you wish, even though the article itself is still protected. Notice that several experienced people have edited the article in the past year. You may be able to get some of them to give their opinion on your proposed changes. The active people include

• Inhakito (talk · contribs)
• Delotrooladoo (talk · contribs)
• Trinidade (talk · contribs)
• Thelmadatter (talk · contribs)
• Tejanoviejo (talk · contribs).

You can see a larger list (showing how many times each person has edited) at this wmflabs.org link (be patient if the link is slow to open). EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention. I rewrote the article way back on 19 July 2011,[53] back when there was an argument whether there should be an argument at all, with some people believing all Mexicans are mestizo or indigenous. Normally I avoid topics like this like the plague basically for what has happened since. Ive done only some very obvious reverts in the past year and really have no interest in getting involved in a major dispute, especially since it has gone as far as arguing that the Spanish are not European!Thelmadatter (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Before taking this to another board, I would like to know why Alon12 (talk · contribs) keeps saying that the references I'm using are from blogs, when they aren't: they are from medical sites and books, and he knows it. This is the main problem that I've noticed with him, he don't hesitates on being dishonest, neither on calling Spaniards less Europeans or Latin Americans "diluted Spaniards" This is something that must be setled first, because having a productive discussion with a person that does these kind of things and tends to move goalposts is impossible. Aergas (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the thing, I am actually providing references from scientific journals, this individual is only providing sources via blogs, that do not provide any comprehensive data, in any case. The person moving goalposts would be Aergas, he did not even know how to read even abbreviations from a real scientific journal, which I explicitly had to show him how, since his grasp of english does not go that far, and then he goes back to his circular blog source. It is a fact that southern europeans acquired heavy non-european ancestry in excess, which is reflected in genetic studies. Alon12 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do either of you have any plan to take the steps listed in WP:Dispute resolution? Should I go ahead and issue the blocks that would have justified by the original 3RR violation? You need to seek feedback from fellow content editors, and I've explained above how you can do that. But you have to want to. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

But is not a blog! Do you know what a blog is? Aergas (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, already replied in the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'll just wait and see. Aergas (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The DRN was rejected because of inadequate talk page discussion. You still need to explain your views on the article talk page (so far there is nothing from you). Otherwise you're unlikely to get any help from admins. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A new DRN was opened today, you mean that one or the previous one? It looks as opened for me. While there hasn't been much disussion on the talk page, there has been in Alon12 talk page, seems to be enough for him to decide to open a new case. I think only the two of us discussing won't get us anywhere. Aergas (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My Actions

Hello User:EdJohnston, how are you? I receive several notices of edit warring and I will explain myself. I thought I was correcting the misuse of tags by User:Besieged as he simply thinks to merge a higher level grouping of animals with a genus, and argued some incorrect statements and with extreme arrogance. I will admit that I probably should have discussed it with him first about it. As far as the edit summary, some of them actually did have text summaries. My internet connection was not the best at the time and perhaps I missed some of the text. Thank you for reading and have a good day.--4444hhhh (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Information in the Accipitrimorphae article *might* be better organized into the Accipiter or Accipitridae articles, in my opinion, hence my addition of said tag to initiate discussion to that effect, the same as why I tagged the article concerning its factual accuracy as well as with a request for an expert. Your presumption of article ownership and edit warring by removing the maintenance tags with absolutely no discussion whatsoever is entirely why the issue was reported to AIV. Then you come here and accuse me of arrogance as if that should utterly condemn my contributions or concerns, whereas I would debate that I was in any way "arrogant" until after you violated the three-revert rule and proceeded to not only tell me I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about, but then tried to rules-lawyer with me and completely shut me out of contributing. I may be firm and a bit intellectually aggressive, but to purport I have "an exaggerated sense of my own importance or abilities" is, frankly, offensive.

The factual veracity of vultures being any reasonable or comparable - much less direct DNA - relation to accipiters is neither fully scientifically settled nor established, and there is significant room for debate on that subject as well as on taxonomy and room for future research to produce an entirely contrary result. Whereas the article, on the other hand, as currently written, purports it to be be bona fide, incontrovertible fact of a relation, whereas my own expertise in the subject, as well as reading the research and conclusions of others with as much or more experience than I have leads me to believe the conclusions presented are either incomplete, misleading or outright false. I would just as happily debate those same points with ANYONE suggesting that there is any more relation between vultures and accipiters than there is to homo sapiens and rodentia: a few million years ago, maybe, but in practical, useful, relationary, ecological, and evolutionary terms, nobody is comparing humans to rats or implying that because H. Sap. once descended from a shrew of some sort that we're related to squirrels or ferrets in any real, viable way. Yes, all birds appear to have descended from one (or a few) common dinosaurid ancestors, but to says that "birds are dinosaurs" is misleading at best (they're birds), and diminishes the value of the word, just as claiming anything more than a distant evolutionary relation between vultures and accipiters is, in my opinion, misleading. Hence, my addition of the tags citing concerns about factual accuracy and requesting an acknowledged expert not connected to the immediate article to provide guidance and insight. The very fact that I'm relying on my personal knowledge and experience, as well as the research of others does not disqualify me from questioning your own research, edits, or conclusions based upon it: the policy is no original research in articles as - or to support - claims of fact, not in talk page discussions, where I am perfectly free to cite my own experience and research in the process of coming to a consensus.

By removing the tags yourself, repeatedly, 3 times in a row, without ever bothering to engage in discussion on the talk page (which you should have done yourself even if I hadn't raised the question there first as I had) you completely invalidated the process, procedure and policy in place meant to bring such concerns to the notice of others and to allow the community to achieve a consensus. Instead, you acted as if you own the article and are an expert with the final say on the subject. If I was arrogant (and I'm not entirely sure I was being), I am sorry about that, but it was only in the face of such recalcitrance and refusal to accept that I might have some idea of what I'm about (especially when it seemed I was being blithely ignored by someone who has more than enough edits to know the three-revert rule by now), but that also doesn't make either one of us necessarily right or wrong: I believe my original post to the article talk page was plenty neutral, if challenging of some of the articles' claims. I most certainly could have acted with a little more courtesy and patience, but this is a two-to-tango issue; had you not reverted the third time, forcing me to choose between what I believe is best for the article/wiki (maintenance tags) and violating the 3RR policy, I chose NOT to violate 3RR and instead choose the only remedy left to me, which was to put the issue forward to an Admin for their attention in order to help ensure you'd take the contributions and concerns of other editors seriously, stop acting as if you own an article, and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

More information on my rationale of questioning the factual accuracy of the article can be found on the article's talk page.

besieged^talk 03:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Do I perceive some bitterness in the above comments? It is best if the two of you work this out, with assistance from some WikiProject if needed. Both of you seem to have expertise. You are surely aware that any further reverts (prior to agreement) will lead to a downhill spiral. Admins won't tolerate a continuing war on this article. Anyone who can't edit calmly on this topic should take a break and work on something else, for the benefit of all. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

blacklight power

Why is this contribution still not in the article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BlackLight_Power#Was_Rowan_Unversity_involved_after_2002_or_not.3F_part_II

84.106.11.117 (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Russell Street bombing

Thanks for moving the page to fix the capitalisation. Will the corresponding entry at WP:RMT be removed automatically?--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks for the reminder. EdJohnston (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Saction EnigmaFay

Hello, you left a message on my page regarding the article Swami Satyananda Saraswati. Does this mean that I am under Sanction? I read the page about Sanctions and it says "The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process." Your message however says that it "does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date".

I am having a very tough time understanding all these different procedures. Basically, some people want to block me for my edits. However, I believe I am treated unfairly, especially since I have written long posts on the articles talk page and have tried many different ways to satisfy both opinions on the matter.

There are clearly 2 different opinions on including or not the allegations paragraph. I would be willing to make a compromise and include the allegations, if they were not written in the vulgar way that they now stand, if they were not written in a way that imply they were true, and if it is made clear to the public that they were not stated in a court of law, where the usual rules of evidence apply. However, even those edits from my part, that tried to make the allegations paragraph more civilized, were reverted. This is to me unacceptable and that is why I support a petition that has been created to reach the head of wikipedia. I do not know how to go through all these different complex wikipedia systems and we do not know how to solve this through discussing and talking on the talk page. Nobody takes into consideration my texts.

If you have any concrete suggestion about what I could do, please suggest it. Enigmafay (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That notification is just an information. It means that you will be banned from editing this page(Swami Satyananda Saraswati) or any subject where you cannot contribute neutrally. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware that I have been judged and declared to have contributed without neutrality. On who's authority has that happened? On what grounds are my edits not neutral? On the other hand, I have written a lengthy post on the talk page of Swami Satyananda on how the current edition of the allegations paragraph violate the neutrality of wikipedia. A post on which nobody from the people who accuse me frantically of disturbing the peace have replied. It would be best to bring forth your arguments and not pass judgments without something to back them up. Enigmafay (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

EnigmaFay, any admin who studies your work and finds you can't edit neutrally on the Satyananda Saraswati article has the authority to ban you from the page, under WP:ARBIPA. *If* it seems you are on the page only to defend the honor of Satyananda then others may not judge you to be credible. Your best plan is to show by your participation on the article talk page that you are willing to assess all the published evidence neutrally. Since the subject of the article died five years ago the rules of WP:BLP and WP:BDP no longer apply. So our duty is merely to offer a balanced summary of what the press has written. The press often decides to publish things that are not yet judged in a court of law, so generally we do that as well. Your comment on the talk page that "I oppose because including sexual allegations without court conviction is no only illegal (Slander) and unethical, but it also does not concern the article of Swami Satyananda". This suggests that either you don't understand Wikipedia policy or you are choosing not to follow it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Report

Would I be out of line asking why my report [54] on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding edit warring is the only one that hasn't been addressed yet despite being nearly two days old? This is a genuine question and not a confrontation as it is my first time reporting someone. Turnopoems (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The 3RR is now closed with protection of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Dawoodi Bohras

Hello Ed, Am still finding my feet in editing and there seem to be a large amount of protocols to learn and respect. I believe the Dawoodi Bohras page and related pages are getting unreasonable bias towards the view of their detractors rather than offering a neutral portrayal. My edits are intended to keep to facts and give both angles and avoid promoting either. Mfeeroz (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Mfeeroz

Hello Ed - you have added a semi-protected template to the page Dawoodi Bohra which has left all the bias of one side intact and the vast majority of balancing viewpoints I had previously introduced all but eliminated. Could you please help me out with redressing this balance. Thanks Noughtnotout (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You've referred to the work of an experienced editor as vandalism. This raises some concerns that you might be here on Wikipedia to change our articles to reflect your personal point of view, rather than reliable sources. On your talk page I'm leaving you a notice of the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Ed, at the moment all I have seen happening is that whatever I seek to introduce as a balancing viewpoint is immediately reverted back. All the sources I introduce are arbitrarily removed when they do not follow the viewpoint that is against the community. The word vandalism was used by the other editor for what I had done even though my edits always kept his argument intact. I am not keen to impose a viewpoint or even to deny that another one exists but at the moment there is simply no balance at all. I will give you one example of the biased sources being used -

The practice of Sajda (Prostration) was started by 51st Dai Taher Saifuddin and went to the extent of claiming that he is “Elahul-Ard” (God on earth)

If you look at the source it is an article relating only the viewpoint of those who are opposed to the community's leader and his practises. That's fine, if that needs to stand its not a problem but then where is the other viewpoint?

I really would like you to have a look at the history of changes I have made so far. I think you will find that I have made every effort to maintain both angles. Especially with the contentious issue of the 'sajda'. I have strictly kept the majority Muslim (sunni) view on this matter in the piece and only offered other verifiable viewpoints from the Quran on the same issue. But all of these are now gone.

Feel free to use the article talk page to make these arguments, but be sure to include reliable sources to back your proposals. It is risky to edit on a topic where you have strong opinions yourself. But if you can add good material to the talk page others can make use of it to improve the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

References

The ban imposed on me came about because of supposed bias in the Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin article. Yet that was barely a short time after the above comment from you about posting in the Dawoodi Bohras article. If you can't see fit to uplift the ban completely then I kindly ask for leave to post on the talk pages. That would seem perfectly fair because at the moment just one point of view is holding sway, there is no chance to obtain a consensus and the neutrality of the article will never be resolved.Noughtnotout (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I won't act on this now, but I will consider it if you ask again in three months. During that time you should make good-faith Wikipedia edits on other subjects. This will reduce the probability that you are one of the many socks who have been active on the Dawoodi Bohra succession. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

11 January 2015

A quite unreasonable consensus was that additional sources were required, then when I provided those it was considered edit warring. Could you perhaps be so kind to revoke the accusation, I've done nothing but improve the article. I don't deserve punishment.

I also want to learn why it should take the better part of a month to add not add a sentence to this article. Either the university was granted research funds after 2002 or it was not. Consensus plays no role in this beyond judging the sources used. I've provided plenty of good sources when asked for those, only to be accused of editwaring for doing so.

More specifically, the legitimate contribution was again reverted, I was blocked for 72 hours for adding sources, unblock request was refused for blaming other editors and you've locked the article - for the crime of adding sources as per talk page request. The term outlandish pops to mind.

Meanwhile, on the talk page, you now refuse to explain why you are all acting this weird over something so trivial. I've tried to improve coverage, you've probably done great things elsewhere on the wiki but haven't made any contributions to this article. You and several other editors have limited interaction to accusing me of nonsensical things and punishing me for them. I don't deserve punishment as I've done nothing but good. In the spirit of working with other editors please notice that the quality of my contributions to this article (also) far exceeds those made by other IP editors - who left long ago.

I completely understand how this type of agenda editing works, Wikipedia logs are full of examples of such creative ways of getting rid of contributors. You are of course just going to ignore everything I've written here, if not use it against me. You know you want to! It should be easy to fabricate a permanent ban out of the above, blocking without evidence worked the last time, no reason to think it wont work here?

Or wait! Assuming good faith actually doesn't work like that.

I guess Ill just ask you why my factual, properly sourced, non controversial, relevant-contribution is still not in the article. I think you can do better for a response than to accuse me of edit warring. Edit warring involves repeatedly restoring a preferred version of an article. My contribution doesn't qualify those criteria.

Here is the talk page section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BlackLight_Power#Was_Rowan_Unversity_involved_after_2002_or_not.3F_part_II

Any comment will do.

If you don't remember how the guidelines work or what legitimate contributions look like I will be equally happy with a reply below. If I'm really asking the extraordinary here I would love to learn what it is exactly.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any chance that you could (a) create an account, (b) stop blanking others' posts from your talk page? The last time admins looked into your situation these comments were the result. So from my standpoint you don't begin from a point of high credibility. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the greater majority of my contributions deleted, whole groups of them in single clicks. Some could reasonably be debated but most cant, the amount of content refusal suggests that it is not about the content but some sort of game being played.

this is what the article looked like when I started working on it:[55] I'm simply reorganizing the sections.

Look how the section "Patent issues" originally appeared right under the funding section as as a sub section of "Company". But when I dare to do that:[56] it is reverted. I'm doing this in a separate edit so that the continued deletion of my contributions can be conveniently applied to the contributions disagreed with. Here is another contribution to show how careful I am:[57] These are reverted like this:[58] Even the expired protection template is restored. Anyone may certainly question my contributions all they like, but we haven't got that here, what we have is a pattern of reverting everything regardless what it is.

Here is another example:[59] The wholesale deletion looks like this:[60] I cant be expected to see which contribution(s) he is talking about like this. Whatever it was he is wrong, the content is restored:[61][62]

This is how much consensus I have for adding extra sources:

1 -[63] "If the Rowan grants were significant they'd be covered by independent secondary sources. Are they?" - Alexbrn

2 - [64] "ok great, so no independent verification and no secondary sources to help us see that these grants deserve any WP:WEIGHT. The matter stays out until we have sources that help us with that." - Jytdog

3 - [65] "In addition to the issues raised by Alexbrn about independence, every content policy (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY) strongly urges us to secondary sources." - Jytdog

4 - [66] "The editor, Alexbrn is asking for a secondary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Facts aren't included in articles because they are true. Things need to be notable enough to be written in a secondary source." - Bhny

5 - [67] Rmv. improperly-sourced; wd need secondaries.

I'm evidently not edit warring and my contribution doesn't lack consensus either:[68] As I'm left guessing what the problem is I've provided more sources and clues on the talk page.

Here I'm trying to write an article section[69][70] 20 days later I'm still not finished[71]

The consensus is already that non of the scientists involved may be mentioned in the article but attempts to reduce the funding section to the nasty remarks of a physicist is not Neutral Coverage. If it is so important to have his accusations in the funding section it seems perfectly neutral to describe who he is talking about. Something like:

Among the investors are PacifiCorp, Conectiv, private investors like James T. Lenehan of Johnson & Johnson,<ref name="ieee"/> Neil Moskowitz CFO of Credit Suisse First Boston[72][73], retired executives from Morgan Stanley[13] and several BLP board members like Shelby Brewer who was the top nuclear official for the Reagan Administration and Chief Executive Officer of ABB-Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power[17][20] and former board member Michael H. Jordan (1936 – 2010), who was Chief Executive Officer of PepsiCo Worldwide Foods, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, CBS Corporation and Electronic Data Systems.[17]

It puts the nasty remarks into proper context:BlackLight_Power#Robert_L._Park: "they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains." I certainly agree the investment review from the physicist looks very different with the names and companies his derogatory slur is aimed at.

Likewise, the grants made by Blacklight Power to Rowan University paint a very different picture than the current attempt towards pushing these efforts back in time all the way back to 2002.

As the rest of the article is nothing but a collection of rants the fact that it looks like I'm trying to promote the topic is a product of Neutral Coverage.

If there is any reason to be skeptical about their claims it isn't the collection of childish remarks, but it has to be that they've claimed products and power plants would be ready X months from now numerous times over the last 24 years. The last one would have been ready in 6 months or December 2014 and again it didn't happen. As it is hard to find sources for all those claims or even get a sentence into the article I haven't managed to address the elaborate lack of coverage in that area. I also have to study why mentioning these claims of products was originally deleted from the article.

I've worked on controversial articles before, I don't expect to get a lot help with this one either. As for low credibility, other editors including yourself will most likely limit interaction to complaining only mode.

Thats fine with me, so what is it you were originally complaining about? Read carefully, I'm not asking you for a new complaint. I would like for the existing one to be addressed first. After that you can raise new issues, again and again and again, as much as you want.

Seems fair enough?

84.106.11.117 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

People who read the article on Blacklight Power are bound to suspect that this is a Perpetual motion machine. If you insist on editing as an IP and keep deleting the talk messages that people leave for you, you'll be at a disadvantage. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anything you've written above address the topic? I'm not seeing it.

What is your point with this Perpetual Motion reference? We are not here to design peoples perception by omission, the reader may think whatever he wants to. The project is to write articles, by the guidelines. Criteria are verifiability.

If you want to complaint about IP editors being able to edit you should take it to meta. If you want to complaint about user talk page guidelines you should propose a new guideline. Until your new guidelines are approved I will be following the existing guidelines.

Here is a link to your talk page. Do you see anything useful or constructive about this link being here in this comment? Have I now constructively replied to you? Here it is again, are we now making progress?

84.106.11.117 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The talk page at Talk:Blacklight Power is still open to you. You don't like any of my suggestions, and I don't find any of your arguments persuasive. So you should probably continue this on the article talk page. As you can see, another administrator has recently acted on one of your edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but I dont assume the other administrators to be more sophisticated than you. Your claim that my arguments not persuasive while you are so elaborately attempting to avoid addressing any of them. This is again not to say I doubt your skills as an administrator. You actually appear very skilled at avoiding the arguments.

But I have mad skills too! I assure you! I had other editors repeat their request for additional sources no less than 5 times. This was intentional, anticipating they would refuse the contribution even when additional sources would be provided. They did quite a bit more, they went as far as to claim that adding additional sources (per their request) was edit warring.

My mad skills are further demonstrated by asking you twice to review a single instance of dishonesty disagreement and then to review a whole set of them. To witch you've responded by elaborately avoiding my arguments.

Clearly you are dealing with a madly sophisticated editor here. No way you could continue to doubt this.

In fact, my only restrain is that I don't want to make your Wikipedia experience any less fun. This sits at the top of my list of things to avoid. I'm trying to avoid that as hard as you are trying to avoid my arguments.

It logically follows that the article was locked and I was blocked for completely unsubstantiated reasons. Deliberately unsubstantiated with a cherry on top of perpetual refusal to address the topic.

If those are the methods used then the art of counting blocks will be equally unsubstantiated. I see you've profiled that editor using a 7 year old block of 12 hours where he added a POV template to an article?[74][75][76][77] He was definitely guilty (well.. kinda) but brining it up in this context is quite hilarious.

You don't have to provide clear and obvious evidence of my edit warring (the way I did right here), you get to chose any of my arguments and explain what (exactly!) is wrong with it. Show me anything at all that casts reason to doubt my mad skills?

You ask the editors for policies. Style guidelines suggest to use "United States" rather than "American" and the sensible way to resolve the conflict is to use an exact description, namely that BskyB was one of the production companies.[78]

If that still doesn't illustrate my mad skills, I assure you I'm trying to keep this as short as possible. If you are interested in the long version I will be happy to write it down for you.

Thanks for your time,

84.106.11.117 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Distinctive essay

Hi, Ed. I really think we should delete WP:DIVA (though I'm sure it would be useless to propose it). It's a very nasty essay, and posting it on somebody who is already upset is humiliating and can only do further harm. I can't conceive of a situation where it would actually help. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC).

Agree that linking to the essay wasn't needed. Let's hope the editor will rethink his plans soon (and come back to create even more noticeboards). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A concern

I noticed that user:Steverci has went through and removed a reference and referenced information from the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims article. He has also removed categories from the Siege of Tripolitsa[79] and Category:Persecution of Ottoman Muslims[80]. On the talk page of Persecution of Ottoman Muslims he states, "Every event this article cites involves Christians, who were themselves being persecuted, fighting for self determination, which the article leaves out entirely. How ridiculous would a "Persecution of British" article look that lists events like the American/Scottish Independence Wars or Indian independence movement? This article is more or less an over exaggerated piece of propaganda."[81] It is clear that user:Steverci will not engage in a rational discussion when he has already labeled the article as an, "exaggerated piece of propaganda". Also, by this time he has already reverted me on Persecution of Ottoman Muslims. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Left a note at User talk:Steverci. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe my concern for a rational discussion has been justified;

"I remove what goes against the rules. The first removal was about a battle, and the second had not categories with anything to do with Armenia, Russia, Georgia, or Serbia, so I removed them. If you're going to advocate sentences like "became minorities in their homeland" (because apparently Bulgaria/Romania/Greece/etc. are Turkish territory), then you yourself are playing self interest. As I said before, we cannot just say 'committed atrocities'. What constitutes an atrocity is opinion and says absolutely nothing."[82]

And user:Steverci still has not answered the question concerning the sources/sourced information he deleted, but instead accuses me of "advocating" something? Aside from the fact he hasn't seen my latest argument(s) on the Turkey talk page, just proves that he isn't here to build a community encyclopedia, he's here to make things "right". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that he has been notified, you have the option of making a request at WP:AE. However AE is more likely to act on things that are clear-cut. A case involving someone's bad attitude may not get any action unless it's very bad indeed. In the case you describe above, you might get somewhere by working from the actual text of the source. If a reliable source calls something an atrocity then there is some logic for Wikipedia to do so also. Of course we can attribute the actual words to the source if it happens that they don't give full details of what happened. Another option for you to consider is going to WP:RSN, if someone questions the use of material from an identified source. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Steverci needs to prove that either the source(s) are unreliable or that the sentence(s) in the article are not referenced by the source given. He has done neither of these things. The burden of proof is on him. Not me. All he has brought to the discussion is his own opinion. As I understand it, Wikipedia is not written using any editor's opinion but on the use of reliable sources, am I mistaken? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War dispute

Hello, following the protection of the article on the Yom Kippur War my proposed compromises have fallen on deaf ears as the other editors seem content with the status quo and the fact that their preferred version is now protected. Neither of them have responded to my proposals despite contributions elsewhere and partaking in other discussions. As far as consensus-building goes the article protection has been counter-productive as all communication has ground to a halt. It alludes me how to reach consensus when one side is disinterested in consensus-building, the implied message in their texts (it's actually quite explicit) is that the one trying to make the change is the one solely responsible for building consensus to end the dispute and that the pre-existing version is inherently more "correct" thus giving them the exclusive right to revert any edit without responding on "talk", until I somehow manage to build consensus for my edit. Turnopoems (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The advice at User talk:Turnopoems#Yom Kippur War from User:Fitzcarmalan was pretty good. I would be curious if you've taken any of the steps he recommended. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed invite other editors to review the dispute and join in on the discussion by forwarding a "Request for Comment", this however proved futile. As a Wikipedia novice I am unable to determine which noticeboard is most relevant to our discussion which encompasses a wide variety of topics, which is why I opted for the former. WP:NPOVN seems irrelevant now as the discussion no longer touches on that issue. Turnopoems (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Request for Comment that you filed at Talk:Yom Kippur War was too vague to stimulate good discussion. Why not try to find an experienced editor who has edited Yom Kippur War in the past to give you suggestions for making a better RfC. Some experienced people who have edited Yom Kippur War are User:Jprg1966, User:Fitzcarmalan, User:Poliocretes and User:Faizan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give that a go and see where it takes me. Turnopoems (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz

Just wondering if you will close the 3RR discussions (3 open, one already archived)? If no Admin will close and sanction, I'm thinking an ANi case on conduct is in order, but rather not go there. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was about to hit post on the ANi when I saw your block. I've posted the ANi anyway - not trying to grave dance - just see the situation resolved. If he does not agree (and his actions after you suggested 30 days off suggest he will not) then I'm thinking it has to go to a community block? Thanks for your efforts. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I tagged you, here we have another ANi. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that page protection is needed

Continue at the ANI about Mexicans of European descent, please. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi again, I have some bad news: The situation of the discussion on the Mexicans of European descent article hasn't improved, in fact it has worsened, there is a "new" editor participing, and seems to be impulsive as this edit shows [83], and has been doing reverts leaving rude summaries [84], I've tried to be kind and just try to explain to him that he can't remove content that is currently being discussed, specially if it was originally there and that Wikipedia favors discussing over reverting but he just ignores it, and he ignores my proposals too, this is why I think protection is necessary, maybe for one week. And on top of this, both editors (Alon12 and Jytdog) are the same person with Alon12 being a sockpuppet of Jytdog, I think he got desperate and is using two accounts to gain numeric advantage. It becomes more obvious with each edit that he does. I started suspecting about this because despite that Alon12's first edit was near the end of december, he has a total knowledge of Wikipedia's noticeboards (his 8th edit was a DNR case [85] and his 14th edit was a request for page protection [86]) and has a very advanced knowledge regarding citing studies and formating of sources. Now 12 days after the start of the discussion the user Jytdog appears and supports the same changes that the user Alon12 has been pushing with no result or backup from other involved editors, and if you look at the discussions on which Jytdog has been involved the handling of sources as well as the style of discussing is the same, this can be seen even in the talk page for the "Mexicans of Europan descent" as only Alon12 and Jytdog bring reflists when citing text from the article [87], [88], every other editor copies the sentence of the article followed by numbers within brakets like this[22]. However what made me be sure that they are the same person is that he replied with the wrong account here [89], he wrote an entire new section with the style of Jytdog, not the style of Alon12: He made emphazis in various sentences using bold text, something that Alon12 never does and Jytdog does in several discussions, here for example [90] and he have done it in this talk page too [91] [92]. Additionally through the discussion Jytdog have mentioned the concept of "primary sources" repeatedly while Alon12 has never mentioned it until he created the new section that I linked above, where he mentions it various times just like Jytdog does. I searched "Jytdog" in google and there are various accusations of paid editing, he is also accused of repeating the same things again and again until he frustrates his opponents in and outside of Wikipedia, this is what Alon12 has been doing all this time too. All this makes obvious that Alon12 and Jytdog are the same person. Aergas (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC) This just in: Jytdog replied to the comments I made to Alon12 as if it was him the one who I replied to [93], and also attemped to edit the article using the information that Alon12 brought and using the words Alon12 used. Aergas (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC) The issue is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-Warring and Unproductive Exchanges at Mexicans of European descent. I severely doubt that User:Alon12 and User:Jytdog are the same editor. If I had the authority to do so and support from other admins I would ban both you and Alon12 from editing at Mexicans of European descent. The failure of the DRN at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Mexicans of European descent suggests that neither of you has the negotiating skills to work on a hot topic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I really wouldn't discard the sockpuppetry, even the attitude of Jytdog changed greatly after I accused him, yesterday he was very rude and today after I let him know about this he became very educate, saying "thank you" after every post etc. both editors are active at similar hours, and after this accusation Alon12 hasn't appear in the talk page for Mexicans of European descent, when he used to reply within minutes yesterday, maybe I have to take this to a noticeboard... Regarding this whole issue, I feel like I've done my best to incorporate the changes that Alon12 and now Jytdog have wanted, but they still want to remove more and more information that I know is correct for that article and I've clearly explained why in the talk page many times, what would you do on my place? I can't just sit down and see how the article gets unfairly butchered. This is why I asked you for article protection, so we can have a discussion without any edit warring. I think that the discussion has progressed a little and is close to be solved, last thing Jytdog said was that would open a reliable sources case. I want to believe that after that this whole thing will be over and will accept that he can't have it his way on every article he touches. Aergas (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Please continue at WP:ANI. I don't have any more comments. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I would just like to say one thing on the subject of 'banning me' if I may, as I was mentioned here, you see, here is the thing. User Aergas, seems to have issues with all other users, to the extent that he engages in edit wars with other users as well, even if you look at the talk page, you'll see that when third party contributors are allowed to make comment, they almost always side on the opposing side vs. Aergas. There was another user User:Inhakito, who attempted to make an edit on the page, and aergas did not even open up a section on the 'mexicans of european descent' talk page to discuss this issue fairly with him. He simply made a unilateral decision to undo his edit. The real issue is that I'm genuinely interested in the hypocrisy, of allowing a user such as 'aergas', who does not even have administration status, to essentially conduct moderation over the page 'mexicans of european descent'. If you see my interactions with other users on wikipedia, I have no otherwise issues with anyone else. I am more than willing to have an open and honest discussion, but user Aergas, does not seem to share the interest in having such a discussion. I even initially posted a section in the talk section on mexicans of euoprean descent in the beginning, when this issue was made. The problem is that Aergas, never responded on the public forum, and instead started discussing content issues on my personal talk page, if you look at my talk page, you'll see user aergas, repeatedly misinterpreting data from genetic studies (I am not starting this as an oppositional statement, even aergas admits on my talk page that he was wrong in his understanding of the particular study and associated abbreviations), to the extent that my patience was wearing thin (I was a new user at the time) considering that I was not allowed to add sourced data (as he kept removing it), but hypocritically, he was allowed to keep sourced data (which did not represent his claims, but that is besides the point and is a content issue). Now, this type of obsession with me, to the extent that even when I talk with third parties on unrelated subjects, he imports content issues into other threads, and continues to make personal attacks against me and declares that anyone who takes a side against him is also a 'sockpuppet' of myself in some sort of bizarre allegation. I only respond to him, as it seems he is allowed to make personal attacks against me on an unimpeded basis. I would prefer to discuss topics on wikipedia on pure content issues alone, but user aergas does not want to do that, and has shown no interests in adhering to any sort of community consensus. So please, do not bring me into the same category as him. I was just a new user and thought that this was the way wikipedia worked in ideal, but some users don't seem to think that way. He has been making unilateral decisions on that page, essentially, acting as a de facto moderator. Why is this tolerated on wikipedia? Alon12 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you Edjohnston, and Alon12, a pair of things: I don't believe that everybody who opposes me is a sockpuppet, you and Jytdog have the same editing style, want exactly the same things done to the article and reply on the place of each other. You have complained repeatedly and called hipocrytal other editors because they don't support you, there have been disagreements before with other editors, the difference is that they understand, that's why you are the only one here, and before Jytdog arrived nobody was wanting or believed on what you were saying, and is not surprising because both of you are likely to be the same person. And please don't make another huge discussion here. Aergas (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Ed repeatedly said not to further comment here, so why do you keep trying to start up new sub-chats on unrelated threads, you did this even the first time, when you refused to discuss the content dispute on the page's talk page, and instead made it a personal issue with me, and still do with conspiracies such as 'sockpuppets'. As you can see in the talk page on the disputed page. Most of the comments, have suggested statements in opposition to your desires on the construction of the page, on many issues, including relevance. And you have made unilateral edits on the page with everyone including neutral third parties like User:Inhakito. Even other users for instance, who have commented on the relevance of certain items in the article, pertinent to your desires for the way the page should be seen was ignored by you[94]. I think it is clear that you have no interests in following any sort of community consensus. The only decision you have ever allowed for on the page, is when a third party [95] acting as the third party in a DRN, demanded that the sourced content I tried to place in the page be allowed to be inserted. Alon12 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Request Edits

Hi Ed. I was wondering if you had some time to look at a few COI items. I've got a few that are simple quick things, and a few that are more complex that could use more eyes and participants. CorporateM (Talk) 17:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

AN3

Obviously you're busy with mopping up in a number places, and I don't like to bother or pester admins on their talk pages, but I would like to know if you've looked at this [96] regarding a return to edit warring by MaranoFan (it's noted below your result comments). Is it fine the way it is or should I file a new report?

As well, please be aware that I have been getting a considerable amount of harassment and taunting by both Marano and Lips Are Movin on my talk page and elsewhere (recent talk page history here [97]). There is also harassment now happening on the talk pages of editors who aren't giving them what they want. They currently are looking for a topic ban for me at ANI [98] as well as talking it up at article talk pages and editor talk pages (see article talk page here [99]). They are also looking for a block by adding bogus 3RR reports about me here [100], [101]. I don't care if they are blocked, I just would like to edit without fear of everything I edit being tag-team reverted by them and would like for the harassment to stop. Thanks for taking the time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ed, I'm concerned there's a bit of gaming going on here. Winkelvi was warned by an admin about edit warring on AN3 just last week.[102] Simultaneously, he was involved in another edit war in another article around that same time that led to protection and an ANI thread about his behavior.[103] His behavior did not stop, however, and has continued, resulting in another warning a week later.[104] I think it's time to consider blocking Winkelvi, as he's had an enormous number of opportunities to change his behavior and has refused. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not planning to take any further action on these issues. If you see new cases of edit warring they can be filed at WP:AN3. It's of interest that Winkelvi's name shows up so often on admin boards (I found 43 hits). I'm sure there are ways of having a quieter life if that's what you seek. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I removed the indent you added because I was not replying to Winkelvi; I was directing a comment to you, but I felt starting a new section was unnecessary. I can't quite figure out, however, what "I'm sure there are ways of having a quieter life if that's what you seek", is supposed to mean. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi gets into fights when he might not have to. An example might be the dispute at Bess Myerson, where there was some logic on Winkelvi's side. Even so he managed to get into a big revert war that led to full protection of the article. You are aware of this because you participated in WP:ANI#User:Winkelvi. As you observed, "Winkelvi has made 57 edits to the talk page of Bess Myerson[12] and 117 edits to the article itself in just the last two days,[13] six of which have been explicit reverts." Even so, User:Bbb23 said: "I don't see anything here that needs to be handled at ANI." I'm not in a position to take any action myself if ANI couldn't agree on anything. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for you to look at an unblock request

Hi, Ed. Earlier today I looked at an unblock request at User talk:Alon12. You placed the block for edit warring. I actually declined the request, but I now realise that an edit conflict led me to over-write a decline that had already been posted by another admin, so I have restored the original decline message. However, the editor has now posted another unblock request, in which he says that, unlike his opponent in the edit war, he stopped edit-warring once he received a warning about edit-warring. Checking the editing history, that seems to me to be true. Would you reconsider the block? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Alon12. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User has become a troll?

Hi Ed, I feel a little like I've been left hung out to dry and don't have the Admin tools to fix it. This user has not made a constructive edit in 5 days and 100+ edits, just troll like attacks on me. This can't be good for my reputation, and is harmful to the project. Can you wrap this mess up or should we seek out another Admin or do I have to start another ANi? Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Would it be tasteless for me to suggest you approach one of the admins who defended Signedzzz in the last ANI? People will be looking to see who is more reasonable in the dispute. I can't tell from a distance (i.e. in 30 seconds) that one party is conspicuously better than the other. So you have a PR problem to solve if you want admin action. My knowledge of the history suggests a certain answer, but not everyone will see it the same way. Merely starting another ANI is unlikely to work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You suggested a topic ban, I quoted you, and then you said nothing, so I feel a little exposed. I'll look for another admin, and if you have any other thoughts, I watch your talk.Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who copied my 3RR closure over to ANI. I struck through one of my comments above. My suggestion would be for you to step back from the Boko Haram article. Though I don't keep up with everything that happens at ANI, I see you've had some trouble at ANI in your own right. Someone who is truly behaving badly (which is what you seem to be suggesting above) will eventually get into such bad repute that something will be done. You don't have to be at the center of that, and you will be better off working on other topics. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My ANi trouble consists of him filing the report against me because he disliked the 3RR report results, and then adding and adding to it. I'd like to see it closed. Looking I see Drimes commented but did not take the time to look into it. He is not partial to me at all so I'm going to ask him to evaluate and close it. After you blocked him many editors have gotten involved fixing Boko Haram up - it had some real issues - and it is a lot better now. I have no fear about any scrutiny of my ability to edit and source. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't advise you any further. If you open a new ANI, please don't quote me on anything. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Abortion sanctions

As I understand it, the community imposed sanctions on abortion pages that included discretionary sanctions and 1RR violations. ArbCom took over the discretionary sanctions but the 1RR violations would still be a breach of the community sanctions (see WP:GS). My first question: is that correct? My second question: if I sanction someone for breaching 1RR (which I did), does it get logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log or at WP:ARBAB? I sure wish these things were simpler.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Now, I don't know much about this stuff, but I did notice that at WP:GS, it says that the old log has been superseded. If you go to the Abortion arbitration case, you'll see the "Log of blocks, bans, restrictions, and semiprotections". It includes 1RR violations "inherited" from the community sanctions, implying that blocks for 1RR should be logged there. Notice the "Since case closure" section. RGloucester — ☎ 06:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that, too; hence, my second question above. Even if that's so, it doesn't make the initial page "obsolete". It just means violations shouldn't be logged there. Anyway, I'm going to bed. Wikipedia wears me out. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no firm answer, but there shouldn't be any problem if you continue to log Abortion 1RR violations at WP:General sanctions/Abortion/Log. Nothing prevents the Committee from giving new instructions about how to log these 1RRs if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Alon12

I have warned him that if he posts anything more to his talk page other than agreement to leave that article alone so that he can edit elsewhere, I will go to WP:ANI to request that his talk page access be revoked. I do see that he is following a common tactic of disruptive editors and arguing that every administrator who has touched the case is now involved. If he continues raging, either you or I can go to WP:ANI. (This has little or nothing to do with the other editor, who is differently out of control with a bizarre allegation of sockpuppetry.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish there was some path to a negotiated solution, but at User talk:Alon12 he won't acknowledge the slightest problem with his edits. If he wants to appeal to ANI of course he can do so, but otherwise I think we've done everything reasonable. Any admin can respond to his unblock request if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Violation?

Can you have a look at this thread and clarify if topic ban was violated by a user or not? Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Left a comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just updating you, TheSawTooth is now indeffed, check WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. I'm glad the issue is settled, though I don't remember User:Highstakes00. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you took the last one (thank you)...

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:CallAng222_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

Turning your attention to this edit history to show the edit warring from today, as you recently closed this 3RRN thread. It has continued and has gotten tiresome. If you have a moment to check it out, please do. Gloss 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at User talk:Winkelvi. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested in knowing this [105] happened. I reported it here [106]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. That's a user preparing for a redirect. See the diff in the context of the page history, not in isolation. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi can call it what he likes, but he refuses to co-operate with a consensus at Talk:All About That Bass that the music video warrants an article of its own, and the article being redirected was an exact replica of the section on All About That Bass itself. - Lips ^{are movin} 09:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've blocked all 3 parties for 48 hours. This continuous back and forth at multiple pages has gotten out of control and ridiculous, as has the vitriol spilled across to multiple talk pages. Just giving you a heads up since actions are being discussed here, too. only (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The multi-article warring couldn't go on much longer; something was bound to happen. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion in which you are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring by Twobells. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Twobells reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 13:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have commented there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Pharmaceutical industry

Hi Ed, I don't know if we have a policy for first time offenders with respect to vandalism (my personal opinion is one-strike-you'reout would be reasonable), but this seems like a pretty clearcut case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharmaceutical_industry&diff=643677132&oldid=643422639

How to proceed? Formerly 98 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked 48 hours for vandalism. Thanks for reporting, EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello

When you have time, could you take a look on the message i wrote on my talk page? thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to see the origin of the word Atabeg to be such a big deal, and worth risking a block for. But if you care that strongly, couldn't you set up a formal WP:RFC at Talk:Atabeg? If you want any help in setting that up, I could assist. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah.. never mind. I don't really care that much, i just hope that he won't continue these tactics (make disruptive edits - ignore what a user says - wait until the user reverts the edit and revert it again - report the person) - honestly, i feel cheated. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, it will probably be useful for me in the future. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

SNSD and SDS

Hi, the user The Destroyer of Nyr had started an edit war on Alliance of Independent Social Democrats page and Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina) page. He is reverting my edits, deleting sources and adding not reliable sources on this pages. He did not even want to join the discussion. So I ask you to protect pages. Thanks--Serb1914 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You are looking for a source that this party is anti-European? You've provided an article from novosti.rs but it is in Serbian. If there is nothing available in English on this party's view of Europe, maybe you can translate a few sentences and include them in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Serb1914 started the edit war by reverting posts backed by legitimate claims and sorces several times. Please sanction him and stop him from reverting my edits and continuing to edit war. He did not try to get consensus before reverting my posts, so I don't see any reason to allow his version of the article, and forbid mine. (Despite the fact that mine has sources and claims, while his is based on "general information"). Thank you. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Mass page moves

I've just spotted someone who has been making a lot of page moves recently and seems to have an interest in the Pashtun area, which is pretty toxic at times. Certainly, some of the moves do not seem to be justified and I have noted a couple at User_talk:Khestwol#Article_move. The latter of the two mentioned there - Ahmadzai moved because it might be confused with Ghilji - is particularly odd.

I realise that this is probably outside your sphere of knowledge in a content sense but I think you do work at WP:RM and so might have some thoughts? If not, could you suggest an appropriate person or venue? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:RMTR. It has a section for 'Reverts of undiscussed moves.' Normally the old titles are speedy restored until such time as a move discussion occurs to justify the new title. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I don't think I have seen that one before! Things are looking up a bit, per subsequent discussions on the user talk page, but I will bear it in mind. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Dark Knight trilogy to The Dark Knight Trilogy move

Hi,

I think something went wrong with your move of Dark Knight trilogy to The Dark Knight Trilogy. It looks like the article ended up deleted, and both the old title and new title are now redirects (the new title redirects to itself). Can you please restore the article at the new title. Thanks. Calathan (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think this is now fixed. I must have hit a button twice by mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

SDS an SNSD 2

Can you please protect this two pages: Alliance of Independent Social Democrats and Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina), because now the user is reverting edits and deleting sources from an anonymous IP address. Thank you very much--Serb1914 (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotected both, for now. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi

Mentioned you here User_talk:Winkelvi#Block_review. Courtesy notification, up to you whether you want to comment or not. NE Ent 14:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

SDS and SNSD 3

How can you protect an article full of lies and without any legitimate sources or proof? You said we should get consensus with Serb1914, but he never asked for the consensus of others? I am deeply disappointed to see that wikipedia is overseen by admins who have double standards and do "selective justice". He started the edit war, yet you protect his fake version of the article (which is not even true). How is it that, when he reverts other peoples edits without any reason, it is considered normal, yet when someone else does it, it is deemed "edit warring" and "vandalism"??? In the case of documented information vs sourceless subjective info, you choose the latter. I definitely recommend removing the protection so that an objective version of the article can be estalished. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

These articles are only semiprotected; you should still be able to edit. If the IPs belong to you, you should be aware that it violates our sockpuppet policy to conduct a dispute using multiple accounts. I previously left a message on your talk page explaining how you can work for consensus. The page at WT:BiH is available to get the views of others on Bosnian matters. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

St. Augustine movement

Thanks for closing the RM discussion at Talk:St. Augustine movement. Can we have the article unprotected now so we can implement the decision? Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is move protected for three months but the text of the page is not protected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the history. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Large Bonds Issue

It doesn't matter whether he is serious. I think that he is serious, in that he really believes this theory. If he doesn't believe it, then he is only a troll. As you and I know, I reported him at the board where I did because he had violated 3RR, and you warned him. Action under discretionary sanctions would require persistence after an alert, and we know that I alerted him.

It is just as well that he uploaded the images to Wikipedia rather than to Commons, because Wikipedia has a good deletion policy, and Commons is a mess. If (as we doubt) the images are real, but are secret, then that is its own reason for deletion, because Wikipedia is not Wikileaks (and, unlike Wikileaks, is in the United States), and secret images are not available under public domain or a copyleft. (Secrecy, like copyright, is a special form of intellectual property, and we do not steal intellectual property, even if it is questionable intellectual property.)

One of three things will happen. He will find other areas to edit (least likely but best). He will resume problematical editing and be sanctioned. He will go away.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Back in the old days when cowboy admins walked the earth he would be already blocked. This way he gets a chance to prove he is actually in outer space before getting blocked. Your info about copyright on secret images is interesting. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as to secret images. If the image is real, but is secret, then its publication is forbidden by the Espionage Act, for which the penalties are even more severe than violating copyright. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory that Freemasons started the World Wars in order to steal all of the world's gold is fringe, but would have to be dealt with by the community or the ArbCom. A conspiracy theory that Freemasons started the World Wars in order to steal the world's gold, and that subsequent events resulted in destruction of the World Trade Center has already been decided by the ArbCom. Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Appeal topic ban

Would you mind advising me of the procedure to go about appealing the topic ban issued to me through An/I in the I/P area.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

By looking at WP:RESTRICT, I notice you are topic banned from Tea Party articles. You can appeal this via WP:ARCA if you want. A review of WP:ARBPIA doesn't indicate that you have any I/P sanctions. If you know of any other ban please link to it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that's strange, was there a time limit on this?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not ask User:Deskana for his advice on how to appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done so,but explain, please, why you didn't simply explain the process yourself? Is that outside the scope of your ADMIN duties?

Personally, I'd rather not deal with you or Deskana again on this website.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Given that the topic ban was under discretionary sanctions, the appeals process is here. As mentioned in the "important notes" section, you can skip going to the enforcing administrator (but the consequence is that you eliminate that avenue for review in the future). If you already knew all of this, I apologize for jumping in. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Tgeairn for the link. Ubikwit, the other admins at AE will often want to know the opinion of the sanctioning admin about your appeal before they make up their own minds. So getting a response from him is worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I overlooked that your I/P topic ban was in fact logged, as User:Tgeairn has observed on another page. Under the new logging system it can be seen at WP:AC/DS/Log by searching for your name. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks. I've filed an appeal at AE, as Deskana seems to busy to reply. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you online?

Ed, you online atm? I saw you've been active at the 3RR noticeboard. Can you have a look at semi-protecting Stargate and perhaps blocking the IP who keeps vandalising that page. There's a few of us who have been reverting the more obvious instances. It's been an ANI for a couple of hours but most northern-hem admins are asleep. The IP now seems determined to do as much damage as possible before being blocked. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotected Stargate one month. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant, mate, much appreciated. I'll close the ANI thread. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PabloOsvaldo17

I restored the block notice which he then removed again. Murry1975 (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

People are allowed to remove block notices, though they can't remove any declined unblock requests. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

AH, thats a bit counter intuitive. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PS he is going off on one, accusing of discrimination based on his (unknown until now) autism. Murry1975 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

BPS

Serb1914 has now gone on the offensive. He is posting ludicrous claims about Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović (without any sources) and associating it with extremism. Do you now see what you have done? I URGE you to IMMEDIATELY protect the page, in order to preserve its true, original content, just as you protected his pages. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please link to any place where you have tried to discuss this with him. I am leaving you a notice under WP:ARBEE because you haven't accepted any of the prior suggestions of how to resolve these quarrels. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack on you

I don't think The Destroyer Of Nyr is going to go quietly. See User talk:Meters#BPS and Serb1914 Meters (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism and edit war

• The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ask you to block The Destroyer Of Nyr. He have attacked me personally promoting violent Bosniak nationalism and is starting again an edit war without sources. This is outrageous I claim a reaction from Wikipedia. --Serb1914 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Please continue whatever you were doing previously. If User:The Destroyer Of Nyr prevents you from actually doing your work, bring it up with an admin. And if you want me to look into something, please link to where the problem is occurring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)