User talk:EdJohnston

EARTHCORE

Hi there you decided top block me for violating wiki policy. I didn't even realise I had done anything wrong and have addressed the problem by removing my comments. Now since you seem to be the type of person who loves to follow the rules how about you follow the following rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PA and stop the 6 months of personal attacks that have been happening to me ? Let's hope there isn't any hypocrisy or double standards here and you do the right thing .......Fisted Rainbow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.221.57 (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.221.57 (talk)

Actually it was I that blocked this user, not you. I too have received a copy of the same message, and have replied at some length at User talk:Fisted Rainbow#Unblock request etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

FIstedRainbow, I think you may be writing here in response to this edit I made, requesting you to remove legal threats from your talk page. Whether you get unblocked depends on your response to the advice given to you by JamesBWatson and Sandstein lower down on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Threat to guanxi

I wanted to be sure you see my response to your comment on my talk page. guanxi (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has continued at User talk:Guanxi#Winged Helmet. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Help

I used to be editor 68.226.118.248 and now I'm being accused of POV pushing and also being linked to some other editors as is shown here [1].

I find it very strange and sad that I have to defend myself for edits done in good faith and being labeled as a POV pusher when I had legitimate reasons for the edits. If this is how wikipedia treats editors who take a particular interest than I now know why it's scrutinized so heavily and has a poor reputation amoung schools, teachers, and educators. I especially find it very insulting that you use an edit that was very legitimate as evidence of POV pushing, especially as an administrator. That edit was towards an article about an organization Technocracy Incorporated when the subject of the deleted material was about the movement as a whole and there was no mention of Technocracy Incorporated in the reference or statement. Notice how I left the same exact reference and material alone in the Technocracy Movement article? How is labeling an organization fascists even remotely neutral? Even when the material is not even on the subject of the organization?

After considering the edits done by Johnfos and this game that seems to be playing out on wikipedia I think the main POV pusher is Johnfos.

I would like you to include this in the notice board please, as I can't seem to edit so I can defend myself.Googlesalot (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was copied to WP:ANI#Technocracy POV pushing per your request. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Teramo

I have no idea why you accused me of sock-puppetry. In the end you chose to delete my version of the article and keep attilio's one. Not even to adopt a newer version in between. On top of that you never explained the reason really. The length of the article is not a reason, most articles here are longer than my version of Teramo and the Italian version of the article for instance is way longer.  !!!! Please explain to me why you consider my version not apt and Attilio's version right !!!!! . Have your read it at all? At least try to look up the contents of what he writes and then let me know if they're real. After months of edit wars there are still people deleting his version. Honestly It's hard to consider whether you've been any use to this dispute. My mind is you should pass the ball to someone else. Regards DDF19483 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment or ask for a WP:Third opinion. This is a way to get more people to look at the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with IP anonymous

Hello Ed. The semi-protection in the article Newly industrialized country is gone and, as usual, Corticopia has returned. He's again, deleting the notion that Turkey is geopolitically in Europe. A discussion about it is currently on going in the talk page, but as usual, he just disrupted everything with anonymous IPs in order to avoid scrutinity and being punished. Could you please re-install the semi-protection? Thank you. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 15:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

These comments User_talk:JoeSperrazza#RE: welcome and this edit [2] suggests that IP 76.66.26.228 is part of these collections: User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_14#Clear_evidence_about_Corticopia.27s_sock, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Corticopia/Archive. Why wasn't the master account, User:Corticopia, indef'd, I wonder? JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the master account is still free to edit to dramatize the fact that he chooses to evade scrutiny by not using his registered account. Somewhere along the way he made a comment (maybe in 2008) that he would use IP socks so he could no longer be stopped by blocks. If you feel like reopening the Corticopia SPI and giving your opinion it would be helpful. I prefer not to be the only admin who ever responds to these complaints, though I believe they are fully justified. Each time I see new episode of geographic edit warring from a 76.66.* IP I'm pretty sure I know who it is. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed, sorry I didn't want to bother you. It is only that in my experience in Wikipedia, you're the most fast-acting and caring administrator, that's why I always come to you when I need help. Where can I ask for semi-protection in order to avoid his behaviour? Thanks! AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And, when all else fails, please observe suspected sockpuppetry by the proponent, with the removal of counter-commentary regarding the semi-protection of this article: note that the IP is from the locale of the proponent. 12:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.26.228 (talk)

Not sure what to do, looking for guidance

Hi Ed, you're familiar with Marknutley (talk · contribs), yes? I think he's popped up as an IP on a CC page [3] from which he was topic banned by WP:ARBCC and his account is currently under an indef block (for socking I think?). Should I request some kind enforcement? Or just leave his comment be? If yes, should I report at AE or SPI? The IP corresponds to an ISP he's used for block evasion before ( see here). Sailsbystars (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That IP has made only a single edit, so I don't think it's worth bothering with, not even reverting. If it turns out some kind of a revert war is happening on the Talk:Global warming page you could alert one of the admins who has taken enforcement decisions on WP:ARBCC. Look in the arb case for their names. I don't much follow the GW controversies here, so some other admin is likely to be more helpful. Or ask User:Tony Sidaway. Mark Nutley's block evasion is a kind of background annoyance so far as I can tell, and blocking his IPs is usually not practical. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Very true about the single edit, but Mark's voice and.... enthusiasm are hard to mistake. :) It's not serious disruption at this point (and many GW articles are semi'ed anyway thanks to the Scibaby socks, so it's unlikely to become so), so I will heed your advice and let him be until such point as he becomes more than a minor annoyance. Thanks! Sailsbystars (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with sockpuppet case

Hi Ed. I would like to draw your attention to this sockpuppet case which I have filed against a new account, which seems to be a bit too fishy to be a genuine, new user (see my comments). I hope you don't mind but I figured that since you have at least some experience and knowledge of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Turkey affairs, you would be able to help out. Thank you. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PD

I do not own the article. Feel free to make any edits you think that improve the article, specially if they are as formatish as that one. Thanks a lot for the effort.--Garrondo (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Humanspeak not acceptable?

Hi. I generally prefer to use humanspeak in communicating with fellow editors. Was there something wrong with my alert to BenJonson? Won't it serve if it's not a template? Bishonen | talk 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Nothing wrong with your alert! I often give second warnings to people who were already warned once. My theory is that something might eventually get through. Better than blocking, if they finally pay attention. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 03:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk:BullRangifer#User:Richardmalter Also. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaron Lanier

Hi, EdJohnston.

I have to respectfully object to your not taking action except to warn me regarding the edit war at Jaron Lanier.

Please just look at the source as compared with fourth reversion which is the one reverted as a supposed violation of wp:blp.

Jaron Lanier himself, as published by Edge Magazine, says (with my bolding):

My Wikipedia entry identifies me (at least this week) as a film director. It is true I made one experimental short film about a decade and a half ago. The concept was awful: I tried to imagine what Maya Deren would have done with morphing. It was shown once at a film festival and was never distributed and I would be most comfortable if no one ever sees it again.

The comment in the fourth reversion which was attributed to the above quote as a ref described Lanier as (with my bolding):

"Jaron Zepel Lanier[1] (born May 3, 1960)[2] pronounced /ˈdʒɛərɨn lɨˈnɪər/[3] is an American computer scientist, composer, visual artist, author and onetime experimental filmmaker.[4][5][6]"

A warning to me, based on the premise that I "may" have violated BLP is grossly unfair and there is no grounds for allowing the violation of 3rr to stand. Please withdraw the warning.

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is enough here to raise BLP concerns, since we know the subject has objected to some of this language. The proper thing is to reach a talk page consensus. You should not keep reverting just because you believe you're right, if you can't convince anyone else. Putting minor events in the lead sentence could be an issue under WP:UNDUE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the warning from my talk page. You may disagree with the value of the edit, but I did not violate wp:blp or even come close to it. Lanier describes himself in a reliable source as a one time experimental film maker. In the meantime you are allowing Viriditas to execute wholesale reversions which delete reliable sources for such things as the virtual reality gloves not mentioned in the remainder of the article. Please address this four time deletion of sources. μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The warning does not say that you violated WP:BLP. It says that if you continue to revert the article without getting consensus you may be in trouble. That was the finding of my close of the AN3 report. Edit warring is blockable, though no blocks were issued in this case. Why should it be a hard task to open a discussion on the article talk page, and wait to see if you can persuade the others? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Persuade what others? This is only one editor who reverted my edits wholesale with differing reasons given every time. I intend, but am afraid to restore the references which he deleted wholesale four times without any regard to the filmmaker comment. Are you telling me I need consensus to restore references reverted four times? That, basically, I cannot edit the article without his prior approval? I get the impression from your repeatedly not answering the specifics that you are not looking at the actual substance and detail of the edits, just saying there might be some BLP issue and putting an unwarranted warning on me which hampers me from editting the article with the same freedom anyone else has. I don't want that warning on my talk page if it is going to be used in the future against me when I have in no way violated or even come close to violating BLP. There is no evidence of my having violated or intending to violate BLP or of needing any warning. Please withdraw the warning. Please answer me specifically on the restoral of the references without regard to the filmmaker comment. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to me to resolve content disputes. Since BLP is a recognized exception to WP:3RR, I am expected to judge whether it may apply, before closing a case. I concluded that Viriditas' reverts were covered by BLP. (Yours had no such justification). A different admin might have reached a different result; for example, he might have blocked both parties. Your best bet for the future is to persuade other content editors, and not strive to litigate it at the admin level. If a clear consensus is reached, anyone who reverts against it may be sanctioned. If you don't like the warning, you can remove it from your talk page. What's not OK is for you to keep reverting a BLP article without support from others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you to resolve the dispute over the film maker issue which is what Viriditas falsely claimed to be a wp:blp issue. I am asking you to tell me explicitly whether I can edit the article for other issues like restoring the references without seeking Viriditas's prior approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

Consider getting a third person to join the discussion. One way to do that is to open a thread at WP:BLP/N. Other possibilities are WP:Third opinion or a WP:Request for comment. You could ask Viriditas if he objects to your adding references. I don't see any comment from you at Talk:Jaron Lanier. If other admins look at the issue and see that you haven't even tried using the article talk page, they won't be very impressed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise that I cannot further edit the article without Viriditas' approval. Given your repeated failure to tell me otherwise, and given that the references have nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called BLP issue, I am simply going to restore them, since they were reverted wholsale four times without any overriding justification. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you try to restore contested material to that article without making the slightest effort to find consensus first, you may be blocked. It would fit the definition of WP:Edit warring. I do not know why Viriditas was removing those references, but you haven't even tried asking him for his reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In essence, your attitude has been that something is going on - you don't know what - but something about BLP sounds good and the easy thing to do is to blame the messenger regardless of what the underlying facts are. I could simply have reverted Viriditas and we would both have been blocked and my comments would have stood as the last version - an entirely more fair result than me being warned vaguely not to edit the article without his permission while his wholesale reversions stand without comment.

This is terribly annoying - for you as much as I assume for me. I don't want to edit this article at all under such unequal conditions. I see no hint of good faith from Viriditas, with his commands to me in the edit summaries, his wholesale reverts versus my careful ones, his false accusations, and his decision to begin a conversation on the talk page a half hour after his fourth reversion.

You have my promise that I will unwatch the article and refrain from editing it ever again. I request one last time, please, that you withdraw that warning from my talk page. There is no reason to believe I need any warning on BLP policy. Putting it there was an easy out, and unfair to me. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove that warning from your own talk page if it bothers you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am asking you as the administrator who issued it to withdraw it. I don't think asking an administrator for a direct answer is an imposition. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'll agree not to edit the article for a month I'll withdraw the warning. Or if you make a real effort to compromise with Viriditas. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Question from EmmanuelM

You banned me for two months from editing articles on Israel and Palestine. I spent 4 hours writing my response to Judith. The least I expect from you is an explanation, detailing the WP policies I violated. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You have now been reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement twice (once in January, once in February) for breaking the WP:1RR rule on Israeli-Palestine articles. Links have been provided to you that lead to the relevant policies. Please read WP:ARBPIA and WP:Edit warring and then come back here if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Read this. I am appealing. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed -- Emmanuelm appears not to have gotten the message that he's banned from talk pages as well (e.g. on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations). Perhaps this aspect could be reinforced. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reminded him on his user talk, and told him how to appeal the topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with vandalism

I don't know how to report this. But the List of Mayday episodes article is being constantly vandalized by a user known as Michael5046. He fails to heed warnings given to him, or to read the article's talk page for why the article is edited in the way it is. He hasn't just reverted my work, but that of another user. He's working on revision 5 or 6 now. Help is needed- William 18:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for five days. Editors should wait for the result of the RfC. This is a content dispute, so you should not describe it as vandalism. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-historian caught revising orthodox history

Thanks for your mediation on the Shugborough Inscription war. I am so thoroughly appalled by Elephantwood's conduct that it smarts to see his revision remain locked permanently on the page, when several other users have objected to his behaviour and his revisions.

Would it be possible to remove his edits, return it to the last good edit (whatever that might be), and then lock it again? His reasons for the edits, and the edits themselves were unbelievably misleading and he's been caught manipulating not only me, but the community and the admins of wiki.

He also doesn't appear to have a single supporter for these edits. Boing has criticised him, as have Paul B and DeCausa. So has Lerdthened. And S.G. And Doctalk. So have you. So have I. Yet he cannot find any support for his views or his edits (which were made without any consultation, and which reverted an edit made by Paul Barlow an award-winning wikipedian).

Surely wiki wouldn't allow Elephant's unmoderated edits to remain locked against consensus (8 vs 1) like this? The page is exactly how EW wants it to look. That alone is annoying. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I do not necessarily endorse the new subheading for the Morton Solution (though I don't see why not - and I do not know a single reason to oppose it), but I do propose that EW's edits, now and in future, be removed and filtered. At least 8 wiki users have publicly accused Elephantwood of poor conduct, and his claims re Morton have been discredited as misrepresentation and manipulation. If he wants to revert Paul Barlow's edit, he needs to supply a good reason. In the meantime, EW's edits probably shouldn't remain locked on the page. 85.179.143.97 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is an RfC at Talk:Shugborough inscription#A J Morton's theory - what importance to give to it? but it seems to have only two participants, you and Elephantwood. Neither of you has ever edited about any topic other than the Shugborough inscription, so you are not exactly regular editors. (Consider creating an account). It is possible you can find a WikiProject where you can tell people about the RfC and ask them to comment. It may take longer than a week to collect enough opinions. Try to avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the formal Longevity notice

Just to let you know, I have replied back to you on my talk page about your request for clarification on my activities to date. In particular, I would like you to justify your statement, "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Wikipedia' ought to receive this message." That may be construed as generalization and a violation of several guidelines, which I'm not trying to seek out... but at least Assume good faith and maybe unacceptable behavoir since you misrepresented me by clumping me together with other members of The 110 Club without quoting an actual violation of mine using a particular diff that showed that I may be participating in unacceptable behavior. That was partly why I asked you why SirFozzie hadn't given me the same notice, while you did. Not trying to put you into a corner or anything, grins, but since you sent me a formal notice, you naturally have to justify your action. I hope you understand that. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that blocks and sanctions may be appealed, but not notices. SirFozzie is a member of Arbcom, and I am an admin who chooses to work at WP:AE. Our roles are different. I have replied on your talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I belatedly saw your comment here on your talk page before I already replied again on my talk page. Apologizes as I did not know that I cannot appeal a notice even if an administrator may have done it after coming to an incorrect conclusion that a notice would be needed (where one may not be needed). I will keep that in mind in the future and hope to be able to recommend somewhere that a notice can also be appealed. Thanks for the clarification about your role as well as SirFozzie's. Much appreciated. Thanks, CalvinTy 21:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Longevity RfE

I read your comment about possibly topic-banning NickOrnstein.[4] We'll see how Nick responds but I hope that that is something that we can avoid. He seems to be very knowledgeable about this topic and if his conduct issues can be corrected, he could be a valuable contributor to these articles. Again, we'll see how Nick responds, but I'm hoping for a 0RR or 1RR restriction or perhaps a ban from articles themselves but still allow him to participate on the talk page. Perhaps this will get him into the habit of discussing things with his fellow editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears as though Nick engages in slow-motion edit warring and does not like to give reasons for his edits. If he is willing to address that, something might be worked out. If you have some diffs of good edits he has made, perhaps you could add those in a comment at WP:AE. This would help to give a fuller picture, since his own defence is quite unpersuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis

Ed, I recently took a break from Wikipedia at 04:07, 5 March 2011[5] after Medeis filed a 3RR report against me over BLP issues I reported. Imagine my surprise to find upon my return, that Medeis has been engaging in edit warring over the exact same BLP issues on Mark Steyn during my absence: [6][7] Please see the talk page discussion. Medeis is still edit warring over poor sources on BLP articles and does not show any understanding from his last round of edit warring over at Jaron Lanier. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add your views at Talk:Mark Steyn. Medeis has already commented there. If you feel that BLP is being violated at Mark Steyn you could make a report at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)