User talk:EdJohnston

Range contribs

Hey. About a month ago, you asked me about my range contribs tool. It looks like X! ported over their tool to here and it seems to work pretty well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at HelloAnnyong's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thread that you copied to WT:RM: is it an RfC?

I prefer not to remove the green (although I would happily go with another colour if you want to change it), as I do not want it to look as if the text was placed there by the editors who text I have copied. It may be that an RfC would be a good idea, but I currently do not have time to shepherd such a discussion so although I would participate in such an RfC I will not initiate one :-\ . -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

So why bother copying the thread if you don't intend that anything should come of it? You already put a closure box on the WT:AT discussion. It could make more sense to let the discussion finish in its original location. Then you could leave a comment at WT:RM advising people to participate at WT:AT if they have an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it is for a change to the wording in the RM procedure not the AT policy that is being discussed and it is better such discussions happens on the talk page of the procedure rather than some other place. -- PBS (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your message on my Talk Page

Hello Ed,

This is in response to your message on my Talk. I have used exclusively one user-account to edit which is this that I have made those edits with and am using now. As to my alleged use of sock-puppetry with IP's I did make a couple of edits when I was logged out (I do not keep myself constantly logged into WIKI) in a bit of haste. Every edit that you will see in the revision page is from IP's 117.194*. That is on account of my Net connection having a moving IP and not a fixed one. (As this is a large city and so is the network there will be many more users with edits made from 117.194* on various pages of WIKI. The IPs keep moving each time for each user when he/she logs onto the Net and its almost never the same except for the first two numbers.) However those made from those IPs on the two concerned pages are mine I concede. By definition, I have not indulged in sock-puppetry, the reason being that I know for a fact that what I have been claiming on that page is correct. My apologies if that were to be still considered sock-puppetry.

Furthermore, please look at this message I left on the Talk of User:VSmith, an admin I have interacted with prior, long before I was reported and you conveyed the same to me. I have clearly mentioned there that a couple of my edits have appeared under 117.194*. I reported User:Smsarmad and the other user User:Maharashtra1 (to User:VSmith) along with a London-based IP 81.157* for repeated vandalism, removal of reliable references, and sock-puppetry. You can see for yourself from that edit that I did concede on my own that those edits were made by me without logging into that account.

These nationalists insert all kinds of BS in the analogous India articles and yet remove reliable references from those like the two in contention here. My issue was primarily with the Gallup poll at http://www.gallup.com/poll/161159/americans-least-favorable-toward-iran.aspx which shows pakistan as a heavily 'unfavored' nation in the US. I put up that as a reference for that pakistan is disliked (along with an article from huffingtonpost.com). The user keeps deleting them from two different usernames and one IP.

I again apologize that I did not show the patience in logging in and making the edits that I wanted to every time. Looking back at the revision history of the page [[1]] its been reverted again and again. I would not have been making those edits in the first place if a well-referenced claim like that was not being repeatedly deleted which I hope you shall appreciate.

Moreover I am pretty sure that Ssarmad and Maharashtra1 are the same user editing from 81.157*. I am posting this response of mine on the ANI page as well I believe WIKI would be just with me in the light of what it can see in this matter.

SumerianPrince (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

SumerianPrince, you are replying to this. I'm not going to evaluate your content arguments. You are expected to persuade the other editors that you are correct. If you continue to revert without waiting for others to agree with you you will most likely be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ed, as regards the 'sock puppetry' part, I assure you I will be logged in every time I make an edit in future. If very inconvenient at that juncture, I shall prolong it, to a point when it shall be feasible. Seeing WIKI the way I do I have not indulged in S.P the way I have seen countless cases on here and shall never do so. That is all I can say regarding that.

As for this particular dispute I again am giving you this link from GALLUP at http://www.gallup.com/poll/161159/americans-least-favorable-toward-iran.aspx that shows pak with a fav rating of over 80% and 14% otherwise which is the third worst.

Since I have been threatened to be most likely blocked and I do love editing on WIKI I shall MOST CERTAINLY NOT continue with the warring that I was indulging in a few hours earlier. But what I don't understand is what there is to discuss about a comprehensive, legitimate, and perfectly reliable reference.

While I am being approached sideways, are you going to spare the other party who has most likely been guilty on all counts that I am being considered so, AND been reverting edits/references that meet RS? Just asking. SumerianPrince (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Then kindly advise

Ok Ed, I would like you to kindly tell me as to what I should do regarding the comment and the corresponding reference that I was trying to put up on the page, and I say this after having read your notification about the South Asian nations.

If you are not willing to moderate or decide that is fine with me. What is not is that in all likelihood a very valid reference with a very clear assertion is going awaste. Am not aware if you looked up the link but that clearly shows a near-extreme dislike/hate for pak in the US. What irked the other party was India doing almost as well as his own nation did poorly and that is something he couldn't clearly stomach. I hope you appreciate that I had already approached an Admin on this and had no intention of indulging in a back and forth reversion war whatsoever.

SumerianPrince (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's my guess that you may avoid sanctions if you will agree not to change any articles related to India or Pakistan for 14 days. If you agree to this, let us know in the complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I shall not be editing on any of those articles. In fact I rarely do. I have replied where you asked me to. I had said I do not intend to edit-war in the typical sense that 90% of them do occur on WIKI (I have seen plenty and visited countless banned users' profiles). Good number of times, they were actually wrong (in the sense that they were indulging in OR or POV-pushing or using sources that were not RS), which explains to a great degree why they were warring and even using S.P's.

In this case nobody seems to say anything about whether the site/ref itself is an RS or not. It looks like a wrongful edit can be pushed through (or a righteous one deleted) by merely not edit-warring; whilst a justified/legitimate edit might never make it just because the concerned editor happened to get into a brief edit-war when that E.W itself was on account of the dishonesty of the other party. Anyway I guess I have done enough explaining and pleading. SumerianPrince (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What would save you from a block is a promise not to edit India or Pakistan-related article for 14 days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The exact same promise/word given any number of times means the same I beleive. In the message prior, I have said, that I shall not be editing on any of the India or Pakistan related articles. Just one thing to clarify though - I believe you mean the political/geopolitical ones (the kind where this all started) - I do edit on Hinduism-related articles and pages on Indian places etc far more. I hope I can continue editing in them (they do not come into the picture here I understand). Or can I not edit on those too? SumerianPrince (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to accept the deal, then you need to abstain from *anything* related to India or Pakistan for 14 days. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Bittergrey

I have kept Sarek in the loop on this. If it comes to offering him a deal, I will be notifying the relevant people and probably starting a thread on AN or AN/I to reach some sort of community consensus on it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

Hi Ed. It was great to meet you face-to-face at the Wikipedia conference.

I've been looking for someone to review my Request Edit here. The current article contains a lot of content that is not actually supported by the sources, unsourced, or off-topic, etc.

I was wondering if you had time to take a look. I know it's difficult to compare the two versions and review the content, but I also know of no better way to do it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

In the new discretionary sanctions, is it no longer necessary to log a notification of the sanctions?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you give a notice using {{subst:alert|topic}} and if you verify that your change triggered the edit filter then your work is done. Logging is not required. If the system is working right then your first attempt to save the message on the person's talk will give you a filter notice. I did some experiments by notifying User talk:ThisIsaTest that you can still see in his talk page history. The full rules are in WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. Notices under the old system remain in effect for one year starting May 2014. After expiry of a previous notice a new one is required, but notice may be given no more than once a year. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

When you say filter notice, do you mean it trips an actual filter? If so, I don't see any evidence in ThisIsaTest's filter log. The filter notice isn't discussed on the sanctions page, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The filter hits show up in his talk page history, and the events go in the logs of the admins who leave them. His own filter log is for notices that he issues himself. See two entries in the history of User talk:ThisIsaTest that are marked Tag: discretionary sanctions alert. If you look at the top of any history page for a user talk, there is a box labeled 'Tag filter' in which you can type 'Discretionary sanctions alert' to search for notices. The log of all the notices ever issued is here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's complicated. I'll have to write it down somewhere because I'll never remember. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just try notifying User:ThisIsaTest using {{subst:alert|b}}. It is self-explanatory from there. Nothing can go wrong unless you try to append a long message to the basic alert. If you want to leave a long message you can do so in a following post. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator

In January, you consulted me regarding the topic ban on Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs). I'm afraid that there's been no actual improvement despite the second chance. The flamewars at Talk:Pavle Đurišić appear to be back, and in general there's been way too much acrimony for a situation where someone is given another chance after having been banned for inappropriately causing acrimony.

More specifically, there's been a number of largely unproductive and often unpleasant interactions with him with regard to Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo, Talk:Serbia in the Yugoslav Wars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skaramuca, Talk:World War II in Yugoslavia, Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. I believe that his interpretation of the sourcing policy is largely shoddy, and that his argumentation is largely specious. I have diligently tried to address each of those sourcing issues with a focus on the content rather than the contributor, but I can't help that I notice a pattern - it's often the same editor behaving in such a specific way - writing articles based on cherry-picked quotes from Google Books searches, which are usually in various Serbian nationalist topic areas.

In response, he's approached me directly on my talk page several times now (you can also see that in the last archives, I can send you specific links to that if you need them), with various claims how I was abusing him, the combined effect of which I see as WP:DEPE, pretty much; when I told him off, his instant retort was that I was doing the same to him. *facepalm*

I thought I'll be able to tolerate this, and let him continue to occasionally vent, but the straw that broke the camel's back for me this time is the fact that I got into an unusual amount of trouble recently with fellow admins thinking I was editing while involved, where one of the contentious points was a tiny bit of Antidiskriminator's taunting at Talk:Vukovar that I had reacted to in an annoyed manner. He asked me "wasn't I involved", and I told him to not beat around the bush - if he actually thought that I was involved, he should provide a modicum of explanation why. He didn't do that, just as I expected. Yet, the point that he asked was later brought up by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs), because I could have used that opportunity to consider that issue myself, yet I just dismissed him because I knew it was his habit to make these sorts of annoying statements. I didn't stop to think how this might look to an innocent bystander, and this slip-up was one in a series that led to me being preventively blocked because JamesBWatson thought it all added up into me being actually involved.

In retrospect, my takeaway from that situation is that Ad's actions are really starting to get to me, and that if left unchecked, this is going to boil over one way or another. Since JamesBWatson criticized me for not asking for help earlier in that (unrelated) situation, and rightly so - here I am, asking for your help.

I realize how this may sound - I'm asking a ban-imposing admin to reconsider a ban on a user, while saying I don't want to drive that user away. I honestly don't care whether Antidiskriminator leaves or stays - but I do want this ridiculous downward spiral of increasingly poisonous interactions to stop.

I thought of a self-imposed interaction ban with him, but the problem is that I see that Ad's interactions are having an eerily similar effect on Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs), which is making me think that the main problem isn't really with me.

I suppose it's also possible that two unrelated people from different continents are just being subtle jerks towards Ad, but I don't think that's likely in this case because Pm67 is a user who actually seems to have a sound understanding of the policies and has made a substantially positive contribution.)

Sorry for the wall of text, but this just isn't a trivial thing to explain :/ Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just commenting here because Joy pinged me above and I've just been through yet another obtuse discussion with Antidiskriminator. I am no saint, and the constant carping gets right up my nose, but he just went back to the same thing with the Đurišić article as soon as the ban was lifted (which frankly was always what was going to happen), and it hasn't let up. I believe I understand WP policies reasonably well, particularly WP:RS, and Antidiskriminator just doesn't appear to, or just ignores them, or cherry-picks phrases out of context in an attempt to get around them. I could give dozens of examples, and I am also being harassed on my talk page almost daily about my supposedly "harsh" comments, but have been trying to avoid taking the bait. It isn't ok to have this level of disruption on an article or harassment of an editor through an article. For every valid point he might make, there are twenty that just aren't valid. There must be a case for re-imposition of the ban, which really was lifted without any proper argumentation even by Antidiskriminator himself, let alone anyone that has to deal with the consequences. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Joy: Few admins are willing to spend time in this topic area and I appreciate your work. Before considering a conduct complaint, I'd suggest going forward with an WP:RM discussion at Talk:Đurđevdan uprising. If User:Antidiskriminator responds by going in circles and not listening to others, that could provide evidence for a future complaint. His previous topic ban was due to a perception that discussions involving him would never reach a conclusion, which led to a judgment of bad faith participation. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)