User talk:EdJohnston

ISBNs

It may amuse you to know that I have once again fired up Helpful Pixie Bot (as SmackBot is now known) to fix up ISBNS. It is much harder than last time, for various reasons, such as cite templates taking "id = 8427394892" and Googlebooks having ISBNs embedded in the URL, but on the other hand I am using a programming language instead of AWB. One of the first things I found is that some of the 979 range has been allocated, namely 979-10- to French books. (Also about 10 more "small" countries have ranges.) Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

I'd be interested to see a log of the new ISBN results. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The first pass is fixing hyphenation mainly. The errors are being categorised in Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs. We picked up one that was wrong on 3000 pages, so that was a good fix. Next dump I'm going to try and work smarter, and a report could be part of that. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Potential SA IP socks

Are being discussed on WP:ANI#Dreadstar in classic turn of the WP:BOOMERANG. Whether they warrant any action is another matter. Based on your blocking of his work IP addresses, I though you're probably the most familiar with the case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The edits are similar to SA, but that's all I can say. The IP is not in the correct geography (Boston vs. New York). The closest relationship to SA's IP is the exchange at the bottom of this page, where the two IPs find themselves in agreement and in opposition to Dreadstar. The 128.* IP is obviously SA. The writing style does appear similar, and the disavowal of being a sock seems forced. 'I just happened to drop in here with my perfect knowledge of Wikipedia procedures to make a small improvement.. ' If there is more of this kind of behavior on fringe articles then semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the 7xxx are in Boston, but 69.86.225.27 is in NY. Although it hasn't edited in a month, I don't thing anyone else has used it. I think it's his home line net, probably with static IP. The Boston ones could be a friend/relative etc. given that they were seldom used. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the NY IPs, IP 69.86.225.27 is not used at the moment, but another IP with the same New York geolocate and with the same behaviour is currently active on "cold fusion". Regarding the Boston IPs, it may be noted that the Boston and NY IPs never edit at the same time and the Boston IPs tend to be on weekends. How to proceed ? --POVbrigand (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we discussing just

• 71.174.134.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• 76.119.90.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ?

If you know of others, please list them. The urgency of any SPI report may depend on the volume of controversial edits. SA tends to draw attention to his own socks by using them to make complaints at admin boards. He often expresses great indignation and makes negative comments about Wikipedia policy. That might explain his use of 76.119.90.74 at ANI. If it's my decision to make, I am unlikely to take any action on a sock that is not currently active. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• 24.215.188.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.86.225.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) see "editing from home" [1]

--POVbrigand (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So far the evidence against 24.215.188.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems of most concern. I am not sure of doing anything yet, myself. You could file at WP:SPI if you want. In the recent ANI, nobody stated that this is a correctly vanished user who shouldn't be mentioned by name, so you might consider opening an SPI under the editor's original name. I can see the logic of blocking 76.119.90.74, 69.86.225.27 and 24.215.188.24 for abuse of multiple accounts. I would not do so unless it turned out that others believed this was an appropriate step. So if you want anything done in the near future, an WP:SPI is best. I offer no prediction of success in such a venture, it's just a step that is open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For your attention

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.

I regret I have too much on my plate currently to expend effort on WP procedures. I'm posting this to insure awareness I have communicated to you. Thanks & best, VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied, with a suggestion to make your views known somewhere on the wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ed, is this what you had in mind when you gave that advice? You know there are interaction bans in place, right? I see no need to go thru normal WP procedures for this, as I too have too much on my plate. But I am asking you, openly, to act upon this. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is still within your power to limit the drama, if you are willing to do so. Should I block him for ten minutes to spare your sensitivities? Your creation of the cartoon risks offending some people and evidently it has. When I replied to him I should have remembered that he couldn't post about you anywhere on the wiki due to the IBAN. That was my mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reported this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba. Additionally, I am regarding you as involved in this instance due to private correspondence between you and Vecrumba on this matter, and due to what you have posted to him and myself on your talk page above. It is likely inadvertently involved, but involved all the same. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am still WP:UNINVOLVED since I have participated in this matter only in admin capacity. You are still welcome to file at AE and see what reaction you get. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am requesting that you no longer use the tools on myself due to your refusal to sanction Vecrumba for a blatant personal attack on myself in violation of the interaction ban, whilst you suggest that I get a one week block for an edit which didn't worry you. You said yourself, you are expected to enforce these interaction bans, and you have refused to act when brought to your attention. Sorry Ed, but you have not shown yourself to be a neutral admin in this instance, and I don't feel comfortable with you using the tools when it comes to these interaction bans. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's where you said as such in relation to expectation to enforce IBANs. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not taken any action against you in this matter nor have I issued any blocks of anyone. Your preference that I not participate is not something I'm bound to recognize, and you seem to be going out of your way to pursue the route of maximum drama. (Apparently you no longer have 'too much on your plate'). Admins are never *required* to take action if they don't want to. In my opinion the cartoon you are working on is likely to cause controversy, and you ought to be attempting to calm the waters, not roil them. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case that you cite above (from the November 2011 AE archive) you were charged with editing a whole bunch of articles in violation of your interaction ban. While I favored doing something, I was not the the admin who closed the case. If you had made an agreement to stop doing those edits, I would have been happy to see the case closed without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the semi-protection of my talk page. An IP hopping sockpuppet has been stalking my (and others) edits recently. Yobol (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. If protection needs to be extended you can always request it at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Please, check my request for Sockpuppet investigation in lieu of Baboon43. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The two IPs that you list seem to be Baboon43, but the registered accounts in your report seem unlikely to me. They are also very old (2006 or 2007), so checkusers would not be able to do anything with them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. AmandaParker (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

With regards to Baboon43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who claims that his / her IP address changes "constantly," if that is the case then why 70.54.66.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) shows up as static (See here). Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that 'whois' services could tell whether an IP is dynamic or static. I wonder what they are basing this on. Generally I use behavior to tell if something is static. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since he is still claiming to be a "newbie" and "naive." Please, check the following edits:

• edit by Samia_et (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)),
• edit by Baboon43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and
• edit by 70.54.66.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

They are all the same and done by the very same user. I regret that my request was declined. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Snooker world rankings

Could you have a look at the recent edit history here? I count over 3 reverts by one editor, and would rather not issue a block or continue to warn myself since I am involved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Disregard, this has been resolved. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"low-seniority single-purpose accounts"

Hi, is this a term that you have just now coined, or has it been used before? And if the latter, do you know if there has been any other on-Wikipedia discussion about it? Meowy 23:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is my coinage. It's a way to refer to a class of accounts that are easy for sockmasters to create. There may also be some good-faith editors in that category, but the SPA aspect is easy to check, and the edit count is easy to check. I am planning to suggest a discretionary sanction that might restrict low-seniority single-purpose accounts from editing one or more articles in AA, such as Nagorno-Karabakh. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So really you are using it to define a category of user that could (if actual evidence existed rather than a suspicion) already be sanctioned using existing means. I was thinking a "low-seniority single-purpose account" was more along the lines of a genuine editor who edits almost exclusively in a very narrow range of articles, or even on just one article, and edits problematically because they have either some pov-buzzing bee-in-their-bonnet about the article's subject or they do not know much about the wider issues to realise their edits are problematic. Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles are, as a whole, not a very narrow range of articles - it is very loosely defined and there are probably hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that could, if an administrator was so inclined, fall under its sanctions. Perhaps there should be some general Wikipedia-wide guidance that could apply to all low-seniority single-purpose accounts who edit problematically. Meowy 02:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cases for which Arbcom has authorized discretionary sanctions are cases where admins are allowed to consider measures that are out of the ordinary. Admins are expected to have a good-faith belief that these additional sanctions might do some good. If you check the log of enforcement at WP:DIGWUREN#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions and other cases you will see some very specific restrictions that were adopted for particular articles. We already have WP:SPI to deal with blatant socking, but in the AA articles the debates at AE are full of sock charges which are difficult to confirm one way or the other. A WP:1RR restriction is one of the unusual means that is authorized and used for articles that are often subject to disruption. Arbcom has frequently mentioned the use of 1RR as a remedy, so the Committee is willing to consider article-specific restrictions that are designed to limit abuse. A restriction against 'low-seniority single-purpose accounts' is a new kind of restriction that enforcing admins might, in the future, be asked to consider as a discretionary sanction. Since it would be applied uniformly to all parties it would not be a partisan remedy. Whether it's a good idea is something that would need wider discussion. I have not yet officially proposed this at AE, though I've mentioned it at User talk:T. Canens#Next steps for WP:AE#Nagorno-Karabakh. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

bad call

Ed, I have no idea why you have fired a shot across my port side. Does it strike as odd that Carlingford Lough page has suffered years of edit warring and pov pushing yet an RFc and DR have only been raised recently with both Domer and Bjmullan providing only a pov argument to oppose a a Change. A prime example where Bjmullan and Domer have forced through their opinion. [2]. I guess if you are warning me with a probabionary period, should I care? Given that Domer has been able to edit freely during this sanction. Hackneyhound (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I found it odd that he classed that as an example of consensus building full stop. None of you have been doing any Wikipedia-style consensus building over there, but it appears you've been singled out because you're less experienced at this sort of warring than your opponents. Perhaps he is hinting to you that you need to become more like them to succeed? Who knows. Anyway, as the protecting admin, perhaps he can fulfill the request I've had to make because of the fallout from this nonsense, for an unrelated edit to insert some badly needed basic contextual information to the article. I could give my opinion on the actual content in dispute, but it's pretty clear that nothing anybody says about it would be listened to, that's for sure. Neetandtidy (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed. While I can understand the logic and reasoning which prompted your actions both here and here, I do not think they have had the desired effect. Despite one of the SPA accounts being blocked for making a frivolous report, the other SPA continued with the same frivolous accusations. Regardless of the fact that the blocking Admin outlined the frivolous nature of the report, the editor has refused to disengage and instead made bad faith accusations against the Admin. With one SPA account blocked, we have another "brand new" editor show up, who has moved the dispute to yet another article with a clear battleground mentality. They too have now made a report at ANI against another editor. With another of Factocop's socks having just been blocked (I've outlined some of the history of socking here) this is exactly the same spillover situation which another Admin has had to address on Carlingford Lough. I fully support the blocking Admin's call for a CU, as the level of abuse is way out of hand. Thanks--Domer48_'fenian' 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you decide to file a complaint at WP:SPI, let me know in case I want to comment. My own tolerance for Hackneyhound and Neetandtidy is wearing thin. Further nonsense can be handled under WP:TROUBLES now that Hackneyhound has been warned. Do you even understand what this is about? What is the significance of Carlingford Lough? Incidentally are you still under Troubles probation? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep still under probation till April I think, which explains my lack of editing. Needless to say I was not at all happy about it. The short hand answer to what it is about revolves around the status of Norther Ireland. Is it or is it not a country. Hence the issue of "international boarder." On Carlingford Lough, it is like Sarek rightly noted, spillover from the Giant's Causeway article another Factocop targeted article. At least your in on the ground floor on this spillover article, having closed down the Carlingford venue. Hope that helps, and yes I can just see you throwing your eyes to heaven and saying "You can not be serious, that's what this is all about". Who on earth would waste that many socks on an issue like that. LOL. PS: LOL is laugh out loud, just in case it's suggested that it's Loyal Orange Lodge. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ouch!!! Just what every Admin likes to here. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Domer, consider yourself informed that I am not a "brand new" editor, and have never claimed to be one. I am a returning editor who intitially just wanted to make an edit to the Loch article, having seen it come up via the NI talk page. It's protected no thanks to you though, so that's that. Right. Introductions over, now let's get to the holy shit bit. Just so I've got this straight. Ed, you're the one claiming to be the enforcer of the Troubles area right? Or so you told me a minute ago at my talk page. And Floquenbeam is another admin whose also dishing out blocks to people invloved in it at the behest of these rambling complaints from Domer which, while they include diffs, don't ever correspond to what's claimed as reality in the words. Yet Floquenbeam had admitted they know nothing about Domer's history at all, and here you are asking him to help you out in understanding the mess he has precipitated. Do either of you have any handle on this at all from a standpoint of being uninvolved but otherwise informed admins? Or are you just fucking winging it, with Domer pulling your strings left right and centre. I've been here 5 minutes and can see what he's all about. If 'SPA' means only using Wikipedia for one purpose, then he is IT. It warms my heart no end to see you to chatting about probations and when they're up, how he's not done any editting while under it, and presumably a veiled reference to what's planned when it expires. Can someone remind me here which one is the warden and which one is the inmate? Neetandtidy (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to tell Arbcom what your previous account was. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And my reason for doing so would be what exactly? I will not dignify such a bad faith request when editors with records like Domer's are given about as much freedom as they like in their chosen single-interest topic area. The more and more I look at his history (I've probably got through more in one day than you have in your whole editting career), the more obvious it seems that he is playing you like idiots. Are you sure he's still under probation? Have you independently checked it yet? would you even have a clue how to independently verify it? I notice you logged me as a suspicious user already. Cheers for that. If he confesses to all the times he's tag team reverted someone like Gravy on an article, all the times he's made a report to simply win a dispute while hypocritically complaining about such behaviour when it's done to him, every time he's bullshitted and fillibustered his way through a discussion simply to give the impression that he's 'consensus building' to gullible part time admins like you, or to the amount of times he's just cut and run from such discussions only to return and resume an edit war, and all the other games he's played with or without your help, then I might, just might, think about it. But we both know he's not going to do that, and we both know you aren't going to look for it for yourself, so we both know this was a joke of a request. A calculated insult at best, a pure pisstake at worst. As it is, I'm fine with being able to show to the outside world the difference between how I am treated and how he is, by the likes of you, in this topic area, on this encyclopedia. Not that I've done a fucking thing to an article yet, because you still haven't even fulfilled that simple uncontentious edit request. And that's another thing, you called me an SPA for having only done thing so far. I've been here one day. How many new editors do you really think work on more than one are on their first day (assuming as you did that I was brand new). You're a joke man, seriously. You treat everyone like shit on the basis that you can't figure out who does what, yet the worst offenders are the wolves in sheeps clothing chit-chatting on on very own talk page feeding you all kinds of half truths. Neetandtidy (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh Dear! Could it be true (you).--Domer48_'fenian' 07:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

IBAN policy discussion

Hi. Since you commented at the AE request, in light of User:Timotheus Canens comments there, please see the discussion here [3] (related to my comment here [4]).VolunteerMarek 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not being bold on WP:Be bold

I was gonna decline the WP:RFP request for protecting WP:Be bold, but then my internet connection crashed and you protected the page. Basically, I think it is a bit ironic to prevent people from being bold on the Be Bold page. However, that aside, I agree a 2-month protection is the correct outcome, and I'm not gonna challenge it. Just trying to tell you what I think. Deryck C. 09:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Omen1229

Hi there,

I would like to let you know that Omen1229 has begun edit-warring in the domain he is topic-banned from: [5]. I know well that this type of matter should be taken to WP AE, however, I got an AE block for a duration of a month for wikistalking in connection with this user[6] in last October, and that is why I do not want to go to WP AE. I discussed my edits with an administrator, and because I did not agree with everything he said ,especially about wikistalking, it resulted in me being blocked for wikistalking by one another administrator who had been a silent-reader of said discussion up to that moment. This does not make much sense, but because I did not appeal it, reporting Omen1229 to WP AE would not be a good idea on my part.

So that I might as well include some history related pieces of diffs with your talk page made by Omen1229, even if he is not allowed to do so in principle:

1. 18:30, 13 March 2012 (edit summary: "deleted "sometimes", there are 40,100 results in google for "dowina devin"")
2. 18:52, 18 March 2012(edit summary: "+3 references for Dowina - Devin"

1. 14:20, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "del repeated info")
2. 16:42, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "Name and ethnogenesis")
3. 16:49, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "manipulation, Roshwald don´t mention Slovakia in a sentence about primordialism")
4. 17:18, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "Are you kidding? This article is about SLOVAKS, not about nationalistic issues")
5. 14:19, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */ new section")
6. 14:26, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */")
7. 14:39, 28 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Kamusella and "continuity" */")
8. 10:18, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Slovak genetic background */")
9. 09:25, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484492312 by Koertefa (talk) source was not removal")
10. 09:27, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "Slavic mythology")
11. 09:28, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "The statue of Svatopluk")
12. 09:35, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 10:06, 29 March 2012 (edit summary: "The statue of Svatopluk")

I suggest you take a decision about the fact that whether Omen1229 is in violation of topic-ban by making these edits ,or isn't.--Nmate (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have topic-banning edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history. I edit only article about Slovaks. So what is problem? --Omen1229 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect said to Omen1229 on 22 November 2011, "I am therefore topic-banning you from all edits relating to Slovak-Historian history for a period of six months." I think Omen1229 should consider the Slovaks article to be covered by his topic ban. That article mentions Hungary throughout, so his edits there inevitably are connected to Slovakian-Hungarian history. I also notice this edit by Omen1229, which looks to be a purely nationalistic edit in service of the theory of continuity of Slovak identity. The edit removes a perfectly good quote from an academic source (a 2006 publication by Cambridge university Press) which claims that the national continuity is unlikely. Omen1229 made another edit here which specifically mentions Hungary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban violations

Hi Ed, I do respect you as an editor, and have generally respected your actions as an admin; there have been a few occasions where you have been blindsided though. But moving on.... I have made a statement about the interaction breach at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Interaction_ban_breach. Given the need to reduce drama in this area, in future when I see an interaction ban breach, do you mind if I simply bring it to your attention on your talk page for you to act upon? This might go some way to lessening drama, given that AE is simply another free-for-all-battle-everyone-until-last-man-standing like venue. Is that ok with you? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 12:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I shall do that thanks. About the above threat, I generally do have a problem with editors contacting admins offwiki with things for things are obviously not required by privacy, particularly when it is 10 minutes after I am emailed (without having time for responses), hence why I was a bit pissed, prob not so much at you. Anyway, hope you understand that sentiment I held, even if you don't agree with it.

Also, on sentiment, have you had a chance to look over my statement at AE, and my comments on my userpage? Thoughts on that, outside of an AE setting would be welcome. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, another thing, you stated in the above section that I created them. Just to advise you, I didn't create them. Refer to post by Greyhood on User_talk:Elen of the Roads for further info. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of having a discussion here eludes me. The AE is still open for any further comments. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)