User talk:EdJohnston

Bill clinton history

Hi, you recently blocked Bill clinton history for 31 hours as a consequence of edit warring. He has come straight back and started again - removing validly cited content from Jaffrelot, inserting copyvios, reinserting material which they had previously added & which had been removed because the sources simply do not support the statements etc. What can I do about this? They have even told me not to post stuff on their talk page. diff of some recent edits. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant to add ... I am sorry for loading you with a couple of rather cryptic reports at WP:AN3 over the last couple of days. Your summaries said things one heck of a lot better than my original reports did. I intend to learn by your example (but really would rather not have to file the things in the first instance!). - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Letting you know about this Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being the one posting this, I was disturbed in real life by my family. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See diff.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Gold standard

I see you have semi-protected Gold standard for 3 months. I'm not sure it is the best thing for the article to semi-protect it for so long. A lot of good contributions come to that article from unregistered users, and the recent edit warring by an IP-user is the first of those in quite a long time. I think it would be better if we just start with a week long semi-protection, and then see how things are going. A lot of newbies quite quickly see that edit-warring doesn't get you anything.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I reduced the semi-protection to one week. Let's see how it goes. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill Clinton History

Sir,i reverted only irrlevent statement from the section.section was on origin of Yadav But the statement had nothing about origin.the origional contributer did not revert my edit on this particular topic.moreover the statement had incomplete detail of yadav castes.so i edited another statement with well cited information.Bill clinton history (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, I did not revert because it would just sustain the warring. That does not mean that I agree with your removal or that it was correct. Your own sources for a completely different statement are (a) old, (b) in many cases only available in snippet view, and (c) often full of words such as "probably", "could be" and "claim". Despite the recent WP:DRN thread you are still showing a tendency not to appreciate what constitutes a reliable source and which ones should be selected in the event that there are several available.

If you felt that it was in the wrong section then the correct thing to do is to move it to a more appropriate section, not delete the thing. I have a gut feeling that you are a Yadav yourself and it is getting in the way of your ability to contribute neutrally. Obviously, I do not expect you to confirm or deny this but the signs are that there is some sort of vested interest on your part. It might be worth you reading about conflicts of interest, just for some useful background information.

EdJohnston, I apologise for commenting here. It would have been better placed on Bill's own talk page had their response to your enquiry not been posted here. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now had to issue another warning for edit warring, together with yet another explanation of why the article cannot mention the points which BCH desires to include. BCH reverted despite a similar explanation on the article talk page, to which BCH even responded. It is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, you might open a WP:Request for comment about the connection between the Yadavs and Yadava. This could be advertised in the usual ways and it might serve to bring in more editors. At this point you should be looking for a consensus to back up your position. I don't know if you feel that this point has already been discussed and adequately resolved at Talk:Yadav. If so you could make a post there summarizing those discussions. If admins see this is as just a two-person dispute between you and Bch, it may be hard to get them to intervene. If you can frame the issue properly, WP:RS/N might help as well. I see there is previous mention of Yadav at RSN on 12 August but on a different issue. It is possible that the Yadav/Yadava issue is too confusing for RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is BCH vs at least three others (myself, MatthewVanitas, Qwyrxian). BCH has thrown tens of citations at the article and its talk page without once providing the link. OTOH, there is clear evidence of dubiety even in the best of the sources they have provided & there are also sources which deny it (one of which is Jaffrelot & the point is specifically made in the article). This has been gone through time and again with BCH, and not just by me. It is an "I don't like it" situation. BCH has been getting away with it for too long now. This is the second suggestion for an RFC of a caste article issue that I have had today, both of which look likely to be a necessary evil. If people just followed the policies and guidelines etc then the RFCs would simply not be required. I think that the issue here is RFCU more than RFC about the content, especially since BCH always avoids the point (they ignore requests for a specific cite of the Yadav/Yadava connection, for example, and of course have ignored your request to show anyone else who agrees with them). I am fed up of people running rings round the "system" but will have a think. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the above was a little intemperate. It says what I feel but omitted the most important bit: thanks for the input. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin‎

Ta William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:History of Morocco

hi

i answered about it here: [1]

Dzlinker (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cockaboose Railroad

In 1990, cabooses renovated in Gamecock colors and decor became part of the already famous South Carolina tailgate scene. They sit on a dormant railroad track just yards from Williams-Brice Stadium and have taken on a life of their own, in terms of parties on game days. The Cockaboose Railroad has contributed to Carolina's gameday atmosphere being named "Best in the SEC" twice by SECsports.com.

Above is the text I copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football in the traditions section. Can you add the reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caboose#Preservation_and_reuse_of_cabooses. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famu98ee (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have already added the information at Caboose. You might consider adding a link to http://gamecocksonline.cstv.com/trads/scar-trads.html#Cockaboose%20Railroad as a reference in Caboose. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Do what you volunteered for

ARBPIA says nothing about needing a template to notify an editor. However, it is clear that there should be counseling before action. You have blocked someone without even explaining why. I agree that the block is probably the best course of action but you should at least attempt to offer support before something that is completely negative to an editor's growth. SCptnono (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Conventional ARPIA sanctions need a warning in advance, but Arbcom agrees that 1RR violations do not need any preliminaries. He was even warned explicitly that he had violated 1RR and asked to self-revert, but would do not do so. Article 1RR restrictions work the same across all of Wikipedia. We only require that the person have had a reasonable chance to become aware that article was under a 1RR at the time they crossed it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then there is the duration... is 72 hours for a first block not excessive? Lirika filosofskaya (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter if you allowed to do it. It matters if it was right or not. You volunteered to help out the project. It is often considered more beneficial to discuss with an editor than to template and block. Asking someone to self-revert and a generic template is much different than actually breaking down what is going on in the topic area and why their actions are so frowned upon. And four months is not around that long. You do not have to promote a more hospitable editing environment but as an admin you should want to do more than what you did. But if you chose to be defensive instead of considering the criticism then so be it. And I agree that 72 is excessive and counterproductive.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would like you to comment as an interested party. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help...

..with regard to the category issue but how do you suggest I approach editing of Anti-Estonian sentiment and the tagging and AfD that I linked in my last AE statement? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your questions here. I see no reason why you can't vote in an AfD and give your opinion. You are still not able to reply to him directly, or ask him any questions in your AfD comments. In any article, you can't revert his changes, but you can advocate for changes on the talk page, and possibly some other editor will take care of it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just to clarify, if I understand you wording of the closure correctly, in future if I am minding my own business and my changes are reverted out of the blue I should do nothing otherwise I may be subjected to a symmetrical sanction if I report it. Is this what you suggest I do if this happens again? FWIW, the EEML case was about offline co-ordination with editors piling on to sway concensus, and none of that happened in this case which was a legitmate concern brought by an individual. I would have thought application of WP:IBAN#Enforcement by reverting would have provided adequate disincentive without having to flip-flop between doing nothing and blocking. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I considered restoring the category 'Far-left politics' myself, but it would have been awkward to do that when I had no understanding of the rationale for the category. Then I found that no other editors supported it and it wasn't consistent with usage elsewhere. If it had been a simpler revert (with less worry about it being inaccurate) I might have done it as an admin action, but subject to correction by regular editors. You should still be able to ask individual admins to undo reverts by Russavia that seem to violate his ban; they might do it. You could also ask other editors who work on the article in question; they might do it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. As I said in the AE case I wasn't wedded to this particular category, it was a matter of general principle. This probably needs an ammendment to the enforcement provisions of the relevant cases so you guys don't have to be burdened with a judgement call. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing when you are subject to an interaction ban poses some difficulties, but surely it's better than having a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but I've been minding my own business editing in my circle of interest, keeping to my end of the mutual "bargain", and yet my edits get reverted out of the blue... --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you assume that Russavia would have no interest in Estonian topics? EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I have no problem with the close, however, I do have a problem with suggested future sanctions (see my comments on Canens talk page for those). I also have no problem with Tammsalu "interacting" with myself, so long as comments are on content ONLY, with no comments directed at myself as an editor (i.e. accusations, etc, etc). This is the way that Carcaroth suggested things should be as per the link I have provided, and it is the way that I have adjusted my editing on WP since way before then anyway...focus on the content...if this is done there is no reason that "interactions" can't take place in a collegial way. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

...and another sock attack at WT:NORWAY

Hi EJ, please have a look at the new additions to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav. Ønography (talk · contribs) and Hirzflag (talk · contribs) are constantly asking odd questions about notability of Norwegian individuals. Not very different from Kollibris (talk · contribs) actions a few months back. --Eisfbnore • talk 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would work on this but the latest addition to the SPI report is not in the proper form. It looks like someone just went in and edited the old report instead of filing a new one. (It is missing the usual headings). It will take some time until I can go and straighten this out. Or, you could refile the SPI report yourself if you have the patience :-). EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like things have settled. Thanks for your effort. --Eisfbnore • talk 07:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Ed. I held off commenting on your sanction because I was a bit upset with your decision and didn’t want to say anything rude that I would later regret. In light of the fact that I generally held to the provision of the initial ban and made one error in judgment I was wondering if you would reconsider your 2-month extension or perhaps shorten it to one month. Either way, I’ll obviously respect your decision with no hard feelings. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your topic ban was extended at AE per a thread in which several admins participated. I'm not inclined to change a group decision unless something is different now. In that AE thread, people pointed out you had done practically no Wikipedia editing since your last topic ban was imposed. Is there any chance you could become active in the mean time and start making well-sourced contributions to non-I/P articles? This would help establish your good faith. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay Ed no problem and thanks anyway. I'll make an effort to edit in other areas within the limited free time that I have. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban

How do my edits violate my topic ban? I concentrated on Kahane's political history, and on Olmert's corruption scandals. I did not put in a single piece of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict.--RM (Be my friend) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See mine and Chesdovi's replies on my page.--RM (Be my friend) 23:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs

Hello, Ed. On 11 July 2011 you unblocked Wustenfuchs subject to a topic ban from "subjects or people related to fascism (broadly construed)" for six months. On 5 August it was pointed out that the editor had edited an article relating to fascism, namely Crusaders (Ustaša). Wustenfuchs defended the editing on the (in my opinion) rather strange grounds that he/she thought "subjects or people related to fascism" meant "articles which have got WikiProject Fascism templates or fascism categories attached to them". The discussions of this are at User talk:Fainites#Ustaše (guerilla), User talk:Wustenfuchs/Archive 3#Your topic ban, andUser talk:EdJohnston/Archive 22#Wustenfuchs. On 23 August I discovered that the editor has recently made several contributions relating to the Spanish civil war, including six edits of Talk:Spanish Civil War/GA1 and at least two talk page posts relating to it. Since the Spanish civil war is quite unambiguously related to fascism, and since Wustenfuchs had already been given warnings about the previous breach of the unblock conditions, I restored the original block. Wustenfuchs has defended his/her edits, on the grounds "But I didn't edit the article. That was deal. I only asked for sourced informations, that is all..." I do not see the fact that the edits were not to an article as relevant at all, as the ban was on any edits related to fascism, not to article edits related to fascism. The fact that the edits were not in themselves objectionable, and were largely concerned with issues of reliable sourcing, might be considered a better defence. My own view is that in the Crusaders (Ustaša) case the editor made unambiguous breaches of the ban and made ridiculous excuses, and that having done that any leeway that might otherwise have been allowed for editing on the periphery of the ban has been forfeited. Consequently I think the reblocking is justified, even though I would not have blocked just for Spanish civil war case had the Ustaše not already happened. However, I thought I would consult you, since you did the unblocking. Do you think that the breaches of the ban are so minor that reblocking is not justified? (One other point: I would not have known that Crusaders (Ustaša) was fascism-related had another editor not pointed it out, as I had never heard of the subject. Wustenfuchs has also edited other articles I know nothing about, and for all I know there may well be more breaches of the ban.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment at User talk:Wustenfuchs. Thanks for informing me. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Message from AceD

I will certainly abide by your ruling with regards to the ATF decision by continuing in discussions on the talk page. I would like to note that I am not employing "socks" and would like that accusation lifted. This is my account, my only account, and I have never presented myself as more than one person. I reactivated an account I had forgotten I had even signed up for over five years ago, based on the advice of numerous people to register. I think further evidence that I am not a sock should be evident as an administrator- under my login name I post from many different locations as IP's. I could easy use that to truly be a "sock", but I don't.

Additionally, I did not utilize more than three reverts in a 24 hour period, or even in a 48 hour period. But I do thank you for your fair decision, and do hope that it does assist in reaching some sort of accord.AceD (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I apparently did not put this in the location I attempted, please move when when you can to where you deem it is appropriate. Forgive me, I truly am still very new to Wikipedia.AceD (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you restrict yourself to editing as User:AceD from now on, you should be OK. To edit a disputed article with more than one account violates WP:SOCK. It would be helpful if you would put a message at the top of user talk page like the one at User talk:VascoAmaral. This would acknowledge your previous use of an IP. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:AceD's defense has a hollow ring to it. He has admitted using multiple anonymous IP addresses and another registered name (AceD), and has engaged in an edit war for some time under these multiple IP addresses, apparently switching to a new address or name (AceD) only after being warned - and never notifying those affected. Further, until very recently as AceD, he has consistently failed to sign his many posts, even when requested multiple times. A very strange pattern for a legitimate editor..... I won't say it's more like a disruptive vandal, but there are similarities - especially when considering the name-calling and other non-Wiki techniques. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"He has admitted using multiple IP addresses"

Um, where? I suggest some lessons in reading comprehension, I stated that as AceD I have utilized multiple IP addresses. Can you only utilize a regular account from one IP address (i.e. only get on wiki at home and not work? Not on your Iphone? etc). Just, wow.

"and another registered name"

This is yet another outright, categorical lie. Please quote where this admission was made. You will not, of course, not only because you cannot but because you enjoy these shell games. To the content though- I have never had another wikipedia account outside of this registered username. Ne-Ver, just to break through your confusion.

I won't clutter up this user's page with anymore of this, suffice to say I could break down each and every one of your claims as the nonsense they quite clearly are but it isn't worth the effort. I sure Ed doesn't appreciate you bringing your anger and fustration over to his user page, I'm sure my page or somewhere else would be a far more appropriate forum.AceD (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The above vitriol being brought to you by an editor who, using more than one IP address, and since at least March, has spent the vast majority of his time on Wikipedia in personal attacks against the undersigned and in reverts of the undersigned's edits. I rest my case.

Computer Guy 2 (talk)

What case? And again, learn to comprehend what you are reading a bit more. I haven't used "more than one IP address". In fact, before I had an account, I made sure to use only one.

And you grossly overstate how much time it takes to respond to someone who literally says nothing substantively, merely attacks another. Nowhere were you mentioned on this page in my response to Ed, yet you absolutely had to come running. You literally haven't spent one hour today when you haven't been complaining or whining about me, be it the 10-15 posts you have made on the 3RR page, the ones here, the now new complaint you lodged at SPI, etc. It's actually flattering.AceD (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AceD if it is truly needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A/E Question

Hi Ed. Is it possible to withdrawal a request on A/E? -asad (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about WP:AE#Chesdovi, why not add a comment to your section, giving your reason why you want to withdraw the complaint. Since others have already commented, we should wait till an admin closes it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Goddessy

Since you have knowledge of previous issues, you should probably check ANI. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That thread is quite entertaining, but I don't think I could add anything useful. In the past the article was a festival of sock puppetry originating from Goddessy's PR department. It seems people are aware of that now. ANI is following its usual good judgment and sober reasoning and has reached a not-too-bad conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No Problem, just a reply

Hi Ed, I've posted a reply to your conclusions at AE and while I may disagree I'm more than happy to go along with them. I have left an example which I hope will support the concerns I have. Thanks again for your comments on the request I filed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing War?

The Editing war is not of my fault.

Page: Save China's Tigers Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nroets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an editing war going on with Nroets and many other members of the Wikipedia committee, Nroets keep editing and removing relevant information, huge chunks of them from the above stated page. Many users have tried to undo his edits, but he refuse to back down and led to editing wars. What is worse is that he is a Pot calling a Kettle black, complaining and asking his rivals to be blocked despite himself being one in wrong.

Nroets removed a fully referenced subsection, only to add 2 or 3 sentences of his own without references. I want to clean up and to just edit that subsection accordingly and has mentioned it in his talk page, but he just removed the entire subsection without valid reasons.

What he does is weird because the whole section and subsection has been there for over 3 years, just waiting for some minor clean up, and updates, however he is removing the whole chunk and adding his own little tales in it. How can the subsection be updated or clean up then? Can the administrators do something about this? He has caused another user to be banned just for trying to protect the page's integrity.

Bengal tiger:

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]

Save China's Tigers

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [5]

John Varty

• 1st revert: [6]
• 2nd revert: [7]

I tried warning him in his talk page, but to no avail.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:China's Tigers

Comments:

NicRoets could be a puppet of User:TigerAlert because what they edit is really similar.

I am just trying to save the page's integrity, to keep things constant and stagnant, and to improve them when neccessary. But NicRoets is removing the whole subsection and prevent other members to update or correct the subsection. Why am i at fault? China's Tiger (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

When there is disagreement, you are expected to reason with the other editors and try to find consensus. If you simply continue to revert, that puts you in the wrong. I do not see any posts by you to the talk pages of any of these articles. Until you have held a talk page discussion, admins and others are unlikely to take you seriously. I notice that User:Nroets has posted at least at Talk:John Varty, though not at the others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replying. However please look at what i stated every time i revert his wrongdoings. I stated the reasons clearly. Yes, i rarely speak in the talk page, however that is because i believe i have given sufficient reasons for reverting his edits when i am doing the revert. To just warn me, and to correct me only seems somewhat bias. Why haven't you talked to him about it -yet? It seems that it is always his rivals who are facing the blocks, and he gets away every time?

China's Tiger (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You believe you are right, however most participants in edit wars sincerely believe they are right. The fact that you give an edit summary when you revert is of hardly any interest. If the dispute is brought to a noticeboard, the fact that you have not participated on the article talk page will be held against you by admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not just me, the previous few users who were up against him thought so too. If he is right, why is he part of so many editing wars? I have know mentioned this in the various talk pages of the articles mentioned. Please do take a look if you are free, and advise me on what to do. Right now i just feel biased against, as though he is always favored by administrators while his rivals are always being blocked or banned. I am losing interest in contributing to wikipedia because of people like him, and biasness like this. That's how i feel sincerely, that's why i am here to ask for advice.

China's Tiger (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not listening to any of my advice, so I don't know why we should continue this conversation. People are being mean to you, therefore you are free to ignore the advice we give about edit wars? EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston,

No offence, but i am heeding your advice already. =) I already mentioned that i am now trying to bring across my points in the talk page on Bengal Tiger and Save China's Tigers but to no avail, he is still reverting my edits. I am already heeding your advice, and already going through the correct channels to get my point across. I am just asking why is it always his adversaries which are subjected to blocks and bans, while he is always free to go? Even though he himself doesn't talk in the Discussion page at all? China's Tiger (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

hello

could you send me the pdf data too. Krisztina Bodrogi, "Turks, Kurds, or a people in their own right?Wikisupporting (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the instructions on setting up your Wikipedia email which I left on your talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza source email

Ed: Would you please email that Zaza article to my wiki email address: <redacted> Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A self-revert yet with more personal attacks

Ed, I am getting tired very quickly of this outright gaming and bullshit that is going on in this area. I am trying to formulate a response to you (on my talk page) about ways to get around this, but it is impossible to do so when Vecrumba self-reverts, but immediately engages in personal attacks on myself at User_talk:Vecrumba#Since_you_were_involved_in_discussion_of_this_in_the_past -- this is getting beyond a joke, and I am now asking that these personal attacks be dealt with immediately. Unlike borderline cases of editing which may or may not breach interaction bans, Vecrumba's outright personal attacks are a breach of his interaction ban in the most egregious way possible, not to mention a core principle, that being WP:CIVIL. It is obvious that Vecrumba has no intention of trying to work things out like adults, but will continue to engage in personal attacks on myself, making it more likely of WWIII breaking out, and this needs to be avoided.

I am also asking that you deal with Volunteer Marek's interjection into the AE discussion in which he is not a part, which is also a breach of his interaction ban on myself. He is not a party to the dispute, so it too is plain interaction ban. And his breach of interaction is also full of personal attacks on myself.

See, WWIII? I am not going to get involved in this any further, apart from what I will try to discuss with you (and any other interested admins) on my talk page. Hopefully in the coming hours. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Though V. may have put too much feeling into his response, it does not appear to be a personal attack. The one listed at WP:AE#Vecrumba really *was* a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, two things.

1st. I consider Russavia's edit, which eliminated a source only because it is critical of Russia, to be harassment of all those editors who are interested in a reputable representation of the Soviet legacy through to Russia's interpretation of said legacy through to current foreign policy regarding the Baltic states. This is not a comment on content, it is a comment on my motivation for making particular edits, accuses me of harrassment, also accuses me in a way of POV editing - if you know the history of "reputable representation" you'll know what I am talking about. Considering that he has made these comments immediately after doing the revert only makes this yet another breach of his interaction ban on me. He could have simply reverted his blatant interaction ban breach, and notified. But instead, we get another rant with personal attacks on myself as an editor, with nothing to be said about the content.

2nd. VM has no valid reason to be present at the AE report; he is not part of any dispute, and he has also engaged in personal attacks on myself. I hope that this will be dealt with as well in an expeditious manner.

Please ask for a second, third, fourth, fifth opinion on this from other admins, and see what they say. FPaS and Jehochman may be of some use; as they are but two admins who I am aware of who were quite knowledgeable on patterns of behaviour and the like with myself and EEML.

Sorry that I, and you, are being placed in this position. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My inclination is to think that V. could need a much longer block for the history of personal attacks. When the AE closes we will find out if that is the result. But such a block wouldn't solve the interaction between you and Tammsalu. One idea is to actually *lift* the interaction ban between you and Tammsalu, with the expectation that both parties would use the utmost diplomacy on articles that are of interest to both of you. If this gets any support, it would need to be approved by Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)