User talk:EdJohnston

Lolwut?

So... how does one accomplish this? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is resolved I think, since the editor has been blocked. See WP:AN3#User:Lkmen reported by User:Suffusion of Yellow (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What I was refering to is the timing. He was blocked at 9:59, but the edit takes place at 10:01. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The system was responding very slowly at the time, often giving the 'Try again later' error message. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

I regret to bother you with this issue again. Night w and I have some disagreements about this article and both of us agreed at AE noticeboard to reach consensus before making changes to the article. Recently he unilaterally archived some unresolved discussions (some of them manually, others by removing 'do not archive' tags and not replying to my comments so that the 7 days period of the archive bot kicks in). At the same time the article includes some changes that he made without consensus prior to the AE agreement/article protection.

I even made a sandbox (repeatedly improved, following discussions with another user) and invited him to look at it, but later he acted as if he didn't knew about it. After I pointed him again to the sandbox and to another discussion where I had already given a link to the sandbox and he has replied, etc. and I asked "Do you have objections to something in the sandbox?" he replied "I'll reply soon.", but didn't bother to do so (see here).

I write to you to inform you, that in such case the AE agreement of consensus-before-editing can't apply anymore (the discussions were archived by Night w), so I will edit it normally, abiding by the "1RR/day" restriction that it has. Alinor (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have left a note at User talk:Night w#Premature archiving. Unless one party is behaving a lot worse than the other, it is worth considering whether the one-month topic ban for both parties proposed in February at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive83#Night w should be enacted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Following your note he restored only the section that he manually moved to the archive, but not the others were he had removed the 'do not archive' tags. I think that he prefers the current version (it includes some of the changes he maid without consensus - I refrain from removing these, hoping that we will discuss everything first - but I will remove them if the situation doesn't improve) and that he is not interested in any of these discussions. And he still doesn't say anything about the sandboxes (unlike what he said he will do). Alinor (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the issues Night w filed a move request for the page, maybe in attempt to change its topic "trough the back door" (because it wants to move it from a specific title to a more general and vague title), maybe in good faith. The move request is related to some, but not to all and not to the more important issues that we had under discussion, so it's in no way a continuation/replacement of these discussions.

Night w informed some editors that have participated in previous move request about the current one. That's fine. But now he informed another user, who so far hasn't participated neither on the talk page nor in the article itself - [1] - with the claim "you were previously involved." - I couldn't find any trace of involvement of that user in the histories. On the other hand I know that this user will support Night w request (because of other discussions I had with this user and Night w is also aware of these). I don't know if this is canvassing or not, and I don't know if we are supposed to cherry pick editors who to inform about particular discussions - just because we expect that they will support our position. But in any case I would like to see if there is such "previous involvement" of that user per Night w claim.

All this just adds to the attitude and misconducts of Night w. Alinor (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert

In the collapsed section above you informed paul siebert to not call editors liars on article talk pages. [2] In this section he has accused me of being a liar around five times now. And is complaining if I remove these personal attacks. Please inform him to refrain from calling me a liar as I do not appreciate it. Tentontunic (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Please supply diffs of what you consider to be personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can`t be bothered to look through the section I have pointed out then do not bother yourself at all. Tentontunic (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The first diff is [3]. I still believe that the claim that the text has no neutrality issues when the discussion about this text is open on the WP:NPOVN is false, so the text cannot be added to the article. BTW, some users argued that this text had other issues, and Tentontunic was perfectly aware of this fact. If "lie" is not too polite word to describe this their contribution, could you please provide another adequate term?

The second piece of the evidence is [4] (self-evident).

The third diff is [5].

My response is [6] I argued that the initial post contained no explicit references to this thread only, so the second post made by Tentontinic contained the second false claim (" I said you are the only person who has commented HERE").

And this [7] [8] is a final exchange. The rest is hardly interesting.

PS. I am definitely starting to lose patience when I deal with this user. In future I'll try not to address to them directly (because that is simply senseless).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need a cup of tea and a vacation Paul -- in your 10,000 character posts :), you have a marked tendency to use the word "lie." Feel free to dispute positions, but the use of the word "lie" when used as often as you use it in about every dispute you find yourself in might well be construed by those who do not know you well to be "attacks". I know it is just how you always write. Other's mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it is quite probable that you read my posts much more carefully than I write them, I cannot remember when I used this words to characterise contributions of users others than Tentontunic. However, you are right, I definitely need a cup of tea (that is exactly what I am having right now), because that is the first time during my Wikilife when I see so blatantly false statements made so frequently by a single person. However, if you will tell me that all Tentontunic's statements are true (of course, I mean just those statements we currently discuss), and no users, except me, expressed a concern over the edits he makes, I'll gladly withdraw my accusation.

So, do you endorse correctness of all statements made by Tentontunic, which I mentioned above?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the single worst forms of argument I have yet seen on all of Wikipedia, Paul. Try defending [9] Collect can hardly be considered as a neutral uninvolved party in a discussion about the L2 block. [10] If I were you, Collect I apologised first for doing wholesale revert of several unrelated edits, which was supplemented with poorly written edit summary ... However, if you are not ready for meticulous work, don't edit Wikipedia. ...Moreover, even after I pointed out at your mistake (which, I believe, was just a mistake) you still refuse to apologise and withdraw your accusations. Unbelievable

showing your continuous view of Wikipedia as your personal battleground

Oh -- and looky here: [11] Therefore, I even don't know how to characterise this your assertion using the terminology allowed by the WP policy ... In other words, your statement is a lie ... The fact that you found another source that supports your POV changes nothing. This is my second warning are also nice exemplars of your style on Wikipedia.

And of course [12] where he adds his voice in seeking sanctions against me for no particular good reason. Cirt decidedly did not view Paul's views as omniscient at all. :)

Oh I forgot, Paul never accuses others of lying. [13] The Collect's claim is absolutely false, Collect was perfectly aware of all of that, so the only plausible explanation for all of that is that he tries deliberately mislead people., Another Collect's false claim is: "One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks." The editor who warned him was me , You claimed that I deleted the content, whereas in actuality I just moved it to the more appropriate article , Obviously, all these your claims were false, and, taking into account that I explained the issue many times, I have a serious reasons to suspect that that was done deliberately. However, if you will let me know that you didn't do these false claims deliberately I'll gladly retract the statement regarding the deliberate nature of your claims, One more false accusation,

which is quite amazing since Petri Krohn specifically stated: Collect is yet again repeating the accusation of "coordinating edits". Talk pages exist precisely for that purpose – for coordinating the editing process. admitting the co-ordination of edits and meges/moves/deletions. But all of this is simply how Paul edits. Many of us know his style now. Cheers Collect (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to report me, go to WP:ANI. If you want to explain me something, you are free to post whatever you want on my talk page. In any event I see no reason to post that here.

In any event, I am glad that you haven't claimed that Tentontunic's statements are true.
With respect,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I know this is who you are. So do others. ANI is not for reporting what everyone already knows about your behaviour. As for your strange digression that I have to say anything at all about Tentontunic being infallible - that sort of rhetorical device is also old hat to you, and is as useless a debate tactic as it ever was. The issue here is how you behave, not whether Tentontunic is right or wrong. The issue here is whether you routinely disparage others. The issue here is whether you routinely accuse others of lying. The issue here, in short, is only your style, not anyone elses. And the facts and diffs laid out are conclusive. And I trust Ed also notices your style here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As Siebert continues with his allegations here then here are the diff`s

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

All of these accusations of lies are utterly wrong, I have not lied once. And have in fact pointed out to Siebert were he is wrong [18] Now you have your diff`s, please inform Siebert he must retract his allegations and that he must refrain from such further attacks. Tentontunic (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I have referred to this discussion on your talk page, here at ANI: [19] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

note

Hi, I reverted a large removal to your talkpage in this diff. The 1P is blocked now. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism etc.

Dear Ed. Upon meditation I decided to reduce my direct contacts with some users working in this area to the lowest possible minimum. However, since I am not intended to cease my activity in the Communism related topics, I anticipate some indirect conflicts between them and me may occur. In this case, I will not spam your talk page with my complaints, and will not comment on their posts on your talk page. However, am always ready to provide all needed explanations, but I will do that only if you will directly ask me on my talk page.
Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Paul Siebert's unfortunate remarks regarding my "approach" to Communist terrorism here and my response, I support his reflecting on his activities of late and look forward to his return to more constructive discourse. I have long and publicly eschewed complaining to (i.e., lobbying) admins or filing enforcement or arbitration requests in the related-to Soviet legacy space, as they either start as, or degenerate into, attempts to eliminate editors to control content. Given Paul Siebert's statement and my sentiments regarding enforcement, I'm not requesting any remedy at this time and trust my inaction will be taken as WP:AGF. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that undertaking to reduce contact did not last long[20]. --Martin (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Phatboi96

Like Risker, I learn something new every day. No objections to a block on BLP grounds whatsoever. Courcelles 05:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

lifted

Hello EdJohnston. If I said my restrictions were lifted, it is what I meant. They were lifted as of March 27,2011. According administrator AGK they were unwarranted to begin with. May I please ask to correct your AE comment in accordance with this message? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks it was nice of you to fix the comment! BTW as you could see Gwen specifically said she sees no reason to topic ban me on I/P I didn't see anything straightforwardly linked to IP topic warring as such, and as you know she did not although the question about I/P area was raised. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson

User:SuperblySpiffingPerson has an obvious: sock. noclador (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

not engaged in edit war Adler87 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I edited the page by using correct source as asked about. That was not accepted for obvious reasons that have to do with the truth of the page content. If we are not allowed to edit wiki pages by using genuine sources why is then Wikipedia editable. Thank you!

Adler87 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had no intention to break any Wikipedia rule but I disagree to see it as unreliable source of information or place of propaganda. If there are rules for all I am committed to keep them just like everybody else.

The last appeal

EdJohnston, I added the text I am posting below to AE, but I am not sure it will be noticed. So I'd like to repeat it here please: I realize that calling users "trolls" is unacceptable. I could be banned on using this word. I could be placed on zero tolerance civility alert, but there's absolutely nothing in the presented, taken out of content differences, none of which was made in the main space to topic-ban me on I/P conflict. Please allow me to contribute to wikipedia. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Per your block log, there have been a number of second chances. What is proposed this time is an interaction ban and a topic ban. That seems to be proportionate to the problems that have been claimed. I do see the logic for unblocking you last December, and Gwen Gale's restrictions did solve the problem of overuse of admin boards. Since December, the new problem is that you are unable to maintain civility when discussing I/P matters. An I/P topic ban could deal with that. That's what AE should address now, unless you have a better idea. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, you said I "overused of admin boards". I have never overused administrative boards never. There was never any "logic" at all in blocking me last September. Have you bothered to read review made by administrator AGK about my block? I was unfairly blocked and then unfairly banned over a single, absolutely valid post on AN/I in a thread started by some one else, an absolutely valid AE request and a single, bad, filed in a hurry, but not in a bad faith SPI request. Where do you see "misuse"? May I please ask you to take a look at Don't just say it, prove it.

My problems now are mostly not connected to I/P topic. None of my "crimes" that was presented in this AE was made in the main space, half of it has absolutely nothing to do with I/P topic at all, all the differences are taken out of content, some of them are 1,2 months old, at least one is 3 months old, before my last block! There's no need to topic ban me. May I please ask you to see the comment made by user:ZScarpia "Since it looks to me as though, to a large extent, Mbz1 was provoked, and since her comments don't appear to me to be particularly heinous (compared to the general level in the IP area), I think that a long-term topic ban would be unjust. Unfortunately, because of her history, Mbz1 has become a bit of an easy mark. I do, though, think that it would be useful to continue the restriction on raising cases on noticeboards. " I brought your attention to this particular comment because user:ZScarpia is an editor from a different side of the conflict, an editor we have content disagreements sometimes, and if such editor believes I have done nothing wrong in that topic, it is the best testimony on my behalf. The topic benefits from my editing there, not suffers.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I see a conflict between what you are asserting here and what I can easily find out by looking at the past noticeboard cases. The debate at at ANI in December gives lots of reasons for concern about your editing. There were a number of people there who felt you were too far gone, and you should be indefinitely blocked. Now, fortunately, you got unblocked on conditions, and you are still with us. But here you are, telling me that the conditions were unfair, Gwen Gale was involved, etc etc. I can't reconcile these things and still have any confidence about your future behavior. AGK said: "I find the accusation that the blocking administrator, Gwen Gale, is not uninvolved to be troubling, but make no comment on them because you have provided no substantiation." You still have given no substantiation. And, Gwen stated you had agreed to the conditions. So according to you, she is involved, the conditions are unfair, and they should not have been imposed, even though you agreed to them. This does not compute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reading it over.I agreed on the conditions because I did not care about contributing to those boards, because I was eager to be unblocked, because I love wikipedia. Now I see I made a huge mistake agreeing on those conditions. Too late now.

The users, who initially commented about me on AN/I, the ones that lead to my block were all involved with me big.

I did not say Gwen was involved. I said user:Daedalus969 canvased admin Gwen Gale to their AN/I thread. Why did I use the word "canvased"? Well, according to Wikipedia:Canvassing "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." is canvasing. This post by user:Daedalus969 is anything but neutral. I am not sure why user:Daedalus969 decided to notify this and only this particular admin, after the user opened a bogus AN/I thread. I am opened to suggestions, if my read of the policy is wrong. Also I am not sure it calls "an involvement".

When were those last cases on AN/I you are talking about? They were 8-9 months before December. Who started them? I mostly did not. I was brought there by other users, but does it mean I overused the boards? No, it does not. 99% of the user, who voted for the block in December were very much involved with me over content disputes. Others voted because I got a certain reputation. They did not really looked at my contributions.

Anyway I took lots of your time, and I appreciate you responded to me.

Just one more question please. Let's say I am topic banned on I/P related topics, would you block me for a ban violation for example for this edit? The article ha not a single word about Palestinians. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I'd like to ask you for clarifications for your message at Gwen's page I post it here because Gwen asked me to stay out of her page.

Either I am missing something, but here I did not claim Gwen is involved. I said she was canvased, and I said I am open to hear where I got the policy wrong. Why the this message is not canvasing. Please help me to understand why this message is not canvasing, and I will apologize for naming it this way.

":::About me removing "warnings". I sometimes do remove the warnings that have no merit, that is probably silly of me, but there's no policy that requires me to archive those. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins ought to be uncanvassable. Any admin who gets an improper request on their talk page should not take the proposed action. If they do, a question may be raised as to their fitness to be an admin. So the concept of 'canvassing an admin' is rather backwards. You considered Gwen to be involved because she had previously taken admin action in your case. (AGK said: "I find the accusation that the blocking administrator, Gwen Gale, is not uninvolved to be troubling"). AGK was taking you to be saying that she was involved. You did say "We did have a big dispute, but not in this topic area.' That is not the current definition of 'involved'. You did not complain, after the December block was lifted, that you were unhappy with the unblocking conditions. If you accepted them, you should stand by your decision. Otherwise it may be hard to take you seriously in the future. Regarding the archiving: the best policy is to keep all your warnings, unless you consider them to be personal attacks. When people provide diffs of your misbehavior, and it turns out that you have deleted all the statements involved from your talk page, that suggests that you're unable or unwilling to respond appropriately to criticism. Any editor who plans to work in the I/P area should be willing to listen to criticism and respond patiently. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I did complain about the bans please see here

About 'involved' I am not asking about now. I am asking only where did I say she is involved in this page that was created a month ago. AGK comment was made on March 13, and you are talking about my comment made yesterday. AGK commented only on my comments made in this page, but not on my comments made yesterday. Such misunderstandings make editors blocked.

And the most important question. I asked you to explain to me why this message is not canvasing. I'd like to apologize to Gwen, if it is not, but before I do I'd like to understand it please. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Palestine topics

Ed, thanks for your involvement with this. Just to let you know I have posted a related admin request at the discussion here WP:AN3#User:TheCuriousGnome reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h). Oncenawhile (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I could imagine doing a one-time revert back to the status quo. Tell me exactly what moves would be needed, in your opinion. (There will be several files involved, no?) Then I could see about getting consensus. I am not sure why you could not be proposing this at Template talk:Palestinian nationalism. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, it's simply the reversion of the name back to Template:Palestine topics. If I propose the reversion at the template talk, I am certain to be shouted down by TheCuriousGnome.

I always thought that 1RR/3RR violations would/should be reverted as a matter of course. Otherwise, edit wars just restart or, in the case of page moves, the violator successfully gets their way (I separate out page moves because it often requires an admin to revert a page move). That doesn't seem right, as it would just encourage 1RR/3RR violations.

Thanks, Oncenawhile (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing things that are contrary to policy. Unless TheCuriousGnome's change can be described as simple vandalism (which is not the case), what you have here is a content dispute. You are supposed to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. This requires you to propose your change and listen to what others have to say. The 3RR case only shows he was 'breaking the speed limit', it doesn't say that his change was wrong. That is for the editors to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...

Would you be willing to close this ANI, assuming you're uninvolved? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your request. My drive-by opinion is is that the discussion is likely to show consensus for proposed sanctions 1-3 but not for #4. #1 seems to include #4, so that may not matter. If the issue winds up going to Arbcom they will want to see that any community sanctions were based on clear and convincing evidence. I hope that whoever closes the thread will be sure they understand the evidence. There is probably no consensus for the page move but I'm far from having a complete view of that. There is some FAITACCOMPLI argument that would have to be read carefully and understood. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 4 was more of an alternative to 1 in case only 3 passed (I usually write all that out but I concluded that it will figure itself out by the time it's closed). I think AC will understand after looking at everything there - it took a large amount of my own time and by the end of it, I felt I should make a proposal. Obviously, if the users involved (on both sides of the content dispute/s) don't see the warning sign by the mere fact that I've stepped in to make this proposal, then I suspect this may only be the beginning. Admins should not be reluctant to act in this case if the proposal is successful. Of course, at the end of the day, I'm not going to try to prevent a final resort if it's the inevitable anyway; this proposal is merely addressing the conduct concern which is more serious or complex (in my opinion anyway). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're being discussed

A statement you made about "admins who get an improper request on their talk page" is now being used as "evidence" that Gwen Gale's fitness to be an admin should be questioned. Was that how you intended that remark to be interpreted? betsythedevine (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Since the AE has been closed, no further response is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the same statement and the same allegations about Gwen have also been posted by Mbz1 to my talk page. betsythedevine (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:LASTWORD. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, may I please ask to accept my apology for putting you into difficult situation? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Abella

doneThisbites (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Peter Orno

Hi Ed! Thanks for your moderating comments at DYK regarding the very important case of Peter Orno. Following your suggestion, I did nominate it on the April Fool's Day DYK page. However, nothing has happened at either DYK page afterwords. I shall be incommunicado the next 3 days. If you have time to verify the April Fools' Day nomination, then it would be a great help.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. There is a current DYK nomination for "In the 1700s (plus minus 100 years!), the word gullible was not in the dictionary", which is worthy of April Fools' nomination, imho. Unfortunately, I am using a borrowed ancient Dell with Windows XP (ugh), and I cannot do much editing.)

Anonimu

I'm not sure if you had seen the entry in Wikipedia:ARBMAC#May_2010_.E2.80.93_December_2010 where Anonimou was previously involved in ARBMAC issues and appealed a topic ban on a technicality. As a result, I issued a rather formal ARBMAC warning in August 2010. See this thread. My apologies for not properly logging it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Though Anonimu is well-intentioned, he seems to view himself as being the sole bulwark against disaster on certain articles, and thus entitled to engage in edit wars to preserve sanity. Perhaps he could be encouraged to open an WP:RFC if this happens in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Hi, I note that you were the last admin on this page so could you possibly explain the 1RR to an editor for me as I don't seem to be having any luck? The article discussion is here and I can't do any more good with this discussion. One question I am not sure of myself though is the removal of talk page comments on talk pages which are Troubles related. This edit here was removed after I had explained 1RR to the editor. Dose this or is this considered a revert? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It now appears that the editor was well aware of 1RR, and I can't be expected to assume good faith. In the interest of fairness it should be noted I've interacted with this editor before, bad block, here and here. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a 1RR violation to me. With this edit he takes out a Refimprove template. Here, he takes out a paragraph recently added by another editor. Since I am the last admin to block User:R. fiend, I suggest that you open a report at WP:AN3, and provide a link to where the 1RR rule was imposed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for that. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the matter here Ed, as I think it is the correct venue. Further discussion on the talk page is pointless. Thanks again, for the advice, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Hi Ed, I don't know if you can remember me mentioning a certain IP vandal I had numerous problems with a month or so ago. 81.109.92.81 persists in dumbing down articles mainly relating to Football or British Television series. He was banned for 30 days in February for vandalism and since his ban expired he has persisted in vandalizing and dumbing down the articles he was before as well as others. He blatantly ignores any messages and warnings he recieves and despite being told numerous times that the majority of his edits are either incorrect, pointless word alterations or simply nonsensical he continues with these edits on a daily basis. Is there anything you could suggest or do to help, as this guy is simply working against the rest of us. Many Thanks & Regards Footballgy (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

You were the first to suggest I be topic banned as well at the AE, so I am asking you, again as you know, "What would be the reason for my banning?" Please answer, I cannot improve if I do not know what policies I broke. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 17:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Dekker Dreyer

[21] You participated in the first AfD and I'm notifying you of a new one.--Wikimegamaster 18:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimegamaster (talk • contribs)

Communist terrorism

Was placed by you under what appeared to be a bright-line 1RR restriction on 25 November 2010 per Digwuren. That bright line appears to be quite blurred currently. Is the bright line no longer in effect? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I urge you to be more specific. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[22] indicates that Paul feels that 1RR is not a bright line, which was the cause of my post here. I note that TFD manages to think that this is a 1RR report by his edit at [23] also on Paul Siebert's talk page. IIRC, he has made a point of making edit war reports. You likely should point out to him that this post by me was not an edit war report, but a request to see if the 1RR restriction was lifted in some way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that your advice to Paul Siebert was correct. He does appear to have made two reverts in 24 hours. It sounds like he's planning to self-revert, though. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now tell TFD that my acts are entirely proper. BTW, I doubt that Paul will self-revert, but your mileage may vary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Actually it was I who asked PS to revert. Which he has done, although he also says he will remove the content again anyway rather than expand it as he says it ought to be, strange behavior really. I should also like to ask you why you did not ask PS to remove his accusations of my being a liar from the talk page? Tentontunic (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to raise the matter at WQA. Some of the discussions at User talk:Paul Siebert could be more refined than they are. Someone said "I think you are far more acquainted with making edit war accusations than I." I feel like taking out my blue pen and rewriting it as 'You have submitted more edit warring reports than I have since 1 Jan 2010.' EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My mom taught Latin. I have made 3 EW complaints in 5 years. TFD has made 12 (including [24]. Two of the ones I complained abouit are now indeffed for being Socks. the other one has has seven blocks, including one for "abusing multiple accounts." Collect (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, EdJohnston. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Magog the Ogre 2 (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your input appreciated in my RfC about if a formal notice can be retracted

Apologizes for the delay but I would like your input in this request for clarification regarding the fact that I received a formal notice by you on 6 March 2011, and that I am now asking clarification over there whether I can request this formal notice be retracted, hopefully by you. Cheers, CalvinTy 22:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)