User talk:EdJohnston

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Jonathansamuel

You blocked the above for a week after his 9 reverts, we know have him using IPs to evade the block on the Heidegger article with which he has an unhealthy obsession. Diff here. He is honest about who he is, but there is no change in behaviour at all, in fact if anything its worse. Not sure what to do here, so I thought I would let you know and abide by your advise --Snowded ^TALK 10:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Jonathansamuel that his block could be extended for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - he is very naive about wikipedia, hopefully he will learn something from this latest episode! --Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clear block evasion now - directly editing the article here> Its not sock puppetry as its blatant! Its an IP he has used previously. May be a case for a topic ban as well. --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And then he edit wars here and here and here. I think a topic ban is needed. --Snowded ^TALK 07:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FiveSeven reverts now, even after I put a warning on both talk pages. I am up to 3rr and while I think this is vandalism, I need confirmation before continuing. --Snowded ^TALK 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I just locked all the doors and windows and extended his block. Evasion does fall under WP:SOCK, even when he edits openly. I guess he has a strong sense of his own rectitude and doesn't respect our standards. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I expect we will get more socks, but at least that one out of the way for the moment --Snowded ^TALK 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that we now have two socks in play. Would you have a look? User talk:LudwigJWittgenstein and User Talk:BertrandARussell both created at around the same time on successive days, same pages and Ludwig is now edit waring on Heidegger. --Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Up to three reverts now - its so blatant, but I can do a sock report if you think is necessary --Snowded ^TALK 14:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked LudwigJWittgenstein, and I left a warning for the other one, who has not yet edited Heidegger. Do you think JS's user page is legit? Would a full professor in France be socking on Wikipedia? Maybe the user page should be deleted in case it might be defamation of the real professor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not legit, his IP is in New York, I think it may be aspirational! Thanks for the action, lets see what happens --Snowded ^TALK 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see this edit [1]. Jonathansamuel appears to be continuing his past behavior at Martin Heidegger. UserVOBO (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Even after the warning. Isn't there a case for a permanent block - three sock puppets, no admission of fault etc.? --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A permanent block would be justified, but I'll wait on that. We now have ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jonathansamuel to track his further adventures. I did not tag 64.241.37.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as his sock because it seems to be a public Wifi used by multiple people in a cafe. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He's still doing it. Please see the recent edit history of Martin Heidegger, especially this edit [2], this one [3], and this [4]. UserVOBO (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see DieFantastischeKapitän's continued edit warring [5], and his failure to respond to the suggestion that he is a sockpuppet. UserVOBO (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More blocks. We'll just have to keep up with this as best we can. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest sock at Martin Heidegger appears to be BraunemSchmutz. Jonathansamuel might have a dozen or more accounts by this time. UserVOBO (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

With this level of abuse is a range block justified? --Snowded ^TALK 14:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This level of abuse would justify a rangeblock if it was not too large. But he is using registered accounts now, so we don't know what IPs to block. Only a checkuser would have the access needed. Do you want to file a WP:SPI? EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably getting to that point, another sock just came along. Id WP:SPI is the route then I'll take that if it doesn't stop this week --Snowded ^TALK 21:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest AlfredJAyer, not even original. I have made an SPI report but we could do with a wackamole job if you would? --Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation

Today Tom Reedy, who was the first to agree to your 1RR restriction (on Feb 19), made 2 reverts (on Feb 23), deleting material that was added in the last 2 days by BenJonson and myself:

• [[6]], where he reverted the addition of this material:

"More recent developments include a new academic journal devoted specifically to study of the authorship question, a special issue of a leading established journal, Critical Survey, devoted to authorship, and a leading British scholar, University of Hertfordshire Professor Graham Holderness, endorsing the plausibility of the Earl of Oxford's authorship.", which was added on Feb 21 [[7]]

• [[8]], where he reverted the addition of in-text attributions which were added on Feb 23 [[9]]. Smatprt (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-protect?

Newman Luke (talk · contribs · email) is at it again, making massive changes against consensus and then complaining how everyone else is "OWN"ing the articles when we try and restore the agreed upon versions. I've opened up an RfC today (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke) but as I am involved in the dispute, it would not be proper for me to apply any protections to these pages. Could you look at his contribution list and decide for yourself if you believe he is acting unilaterally again and perhaps apply some protections? Your comments would be welcome at the RfC, whether pro or con, I know I may be too close to the issue. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Newman Luke here on what basis he made his latest revert at Forbidden relationships in Judaism. I have not noticed anyone supporting his changes, so article protection would not be my first choice. He should stop reverting until he can find support. If he won't stop, sanctions may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is my point valid?

Thank you for putting me in my place. I enjoyed the time off to cool down. I have performed the actions as you requested and made no more modifications to the MoveOn.org article page. I have created a posting on the Discussion page, and have only received action from the earlier participant in my conduct, DD2K. Could you please review my complaints, as well as actions, this time around? I am sure that the citation in question should not be there. Could you please explain it to me how I am wrong under Wikipedia rules? This is an honest attempt on my part to clear up a fuzzy situation with regards to use/overuse of an unnecessary if not unreliable citation. Thank you so much,Bikeric (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to this 3RR case. It is clear that you have not been blocked, just warned about edit warring. Others at Talk:MoveOn.org claim that there is a standard way of reporting membership in infoboxes. They indicate that self-reported membership claims are put in the infoboxes without any qualifier being added, such as the word 'claimed.' Admins do not decide who is right in a situation like this; we expect it to be settled by a consensus of those working on it. If you are willing to leave the article alone until the talk page makes a decision, then you have done everything correctly and I have no reason for any further involvement. If agreement cannot be reached, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion ...

regarding the problems besetting the article State of Palestine. Instead of protecting the page, you could page ban the editors involved in edit-warring. In this particular case, that would be User:Drork and myself. While I would hate to lose the ability to edit that page as I've been a main contributor to its development, I'd be willing to give up that right to see the page freed of Drork's tendentious and disruptive editing behaviours. My edit-warring in response to his edit-warring is not healthy for the article (or my Wiki career and general mental health) anyway. Thanks for considering this suggestion. Tiamut^talk 20:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed this plan to Drork here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not accept Tiamut's suggestion whatsoever, and I don't think anyone is in a position of throwing the blame on me. If you want explanations about my edits, I would be happy to provide them, but so far, Tiamut could not explain her behavior, nor could she explain her problematic edits or her objection to my edits, except saying that "Palestine exists", which is a political statement. DrorK (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: if saying that "Palestine exists" is a political statement, is "Palestine does not exist" a similarly political statement (not that you're saying that)? Do you feel that Palestine exists or does not, for argument's sake? (I am quite neutral in this political matter, as an American of neither Arab nor Jewish descent)... Doc9871 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have very simple arguments here: (1) The 1988-proclaimed State of Palestine cannot be presented as an existing state as long as there is a serious doubt over whether it can be called a state. I have no problem with saying it is a political entity and describe the controversy. (2) The terms: British Mandate of Palestine, Palestine (as a geographical region), Palestinian territories and Palestinian National Authority should be carefully distinguished. Currently Tiamut and some other editors work to blur these distinctions, probably for political reasons. (3) One cannot write statements like "about 100 countries recognized the State of Palestine" when Palestinian officials say they can prove on 67 recognitions (this statement is well attested). I have shown that many of the lists upon which Tiamut, Harlan and Nableezy based their claims were flawed (i.e. contradicted sources much more reliable, probably due to innocent misunderstandings). They insisted on using the flawed sources. All my edits where in line with these three principles. DrorK (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that there are nations (legitimate or not) that claim that Israel is not a "state" under the first principle you cite, correct?. Whether it is or not (or whether Palestine is or not) is purely political; and you are as complicit in this as Tiamut, Nableezy and Harlan. You have answered my question as to your opinion on whether Palestine exists as a legitimate state or not; the other editors would presumedly argue that Israel is not a legitimate state - am I wrong in this? Do you see the greater WP:NPOV conflict we're dealing with here? Doc9871 (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. I am talking from the factual point of view now - at present, no one can claim Israel is non-existent. Certain people, like Ahmadinejad, deplore its existent, but there is no serious debate about whether or not it exist. Had you asked me during the early 1950s I might have answered otherwise (Israel was established in May 1948), but today, there is no factual doubt about the existence of Israel as a state. The factual existence of a state called Palestine is indeed debated from the very factual point of view, and I brought many examples to that, including statements by Palestinian leaders. Harlan did his best to claim that by international law, there is such a state, but his arguments are purely legal (and it is not a mere juristic issue), and are not mainstream. If he wants to write an article about the legal notion of statehood and refer to the 1988-proclaimed S.O. Palestine in one the paragraphs, that's fine with me, but he cannot make a statement such as "Palestine is a state" based on contested legal interpretations. I should note here, that WP was never meant to be a post-modernist project which respect the existence of multiple truths, according to political and cultural points of view. The principles of WP clearly state that we strive for factual verifiable information. You can argue whether or not I am factually wrong, but you cannot just say: there are different political opinions. DrorK (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that this has any business continuing on Ed's talk page (& I'd be happy to move the discussion to yours or my talk page), but I have another question. What was the area called in 1938? How did the British (for instance) refer to this particular region then? Was the area ever called Palestine? You decide... Doc9871 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll just answer your last question briefly: In 1938 the authority governing the area now known as Israel+Palestinian territories, or as Israel+West Bank+Gaza Strip, was the the British Mandate of Palestine (or to be more exact: the League of Nation's Mandate of Palestine entrusted with the UK). However this is not the whole story. The mandate had three official languages. While the English name was "Palestine", and the Arabic "filasṭin", the Hebrew version was: "Palestina (E.Y)" "E.Y" was a small but important reference to the traditional Jewish name of the country: "Eretz Yisrael". Furthermore, the mandate charter from 1922 defines its purpose as creating a "Jewish national home" in Palestine (Harlan consistently claims that this point is of little relevance). So, it is quite obvious that the name Palestine is used in English in various ways, and in 1938 it was used in a different way than today. DrorK (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

question

Hey there Ed,

It seems I'm being harassed by an editor who disagrees with an edit made on Irish American. He posted to my talk page, etc., and then I deleted it when it seemed to be the end of it. But now he's come back and reverted on my talk page. I deleted it again, which I'm allowed to do on my own talk page. This editor is very upset that an edit he made is not being supported on the article talk page. The discussion has been going on for a bit, and then he came along and just inserted material. Point is, I don't think this singling out is appropriate and certainly his edit summary comments are not helping, nor is reverting on my own talk page. [10][11][12]. Thanks, Malke2010 05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

diffs: [13] [14] [15] [16]

He keeps reverting despite opposition on the talk page. The sources he's using don't actually make these claims.Malke2010 22:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think all of you should be working harder to get a clear consensus at Talk:Irish American before making controversial changes. If the reverts continue, the article may be protected. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Thanks Ed, and would much appreciate it if you'd keep an eye out.Malke2010 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:BraunemSchmutz

Hi, you recently blocked some sockpuppets of User:Jonathansamuel editing the Heidegger article. Can you look into this user who is displaying a similar editing pattern? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 06:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, can you look at User:AlfredJAyer as well? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 19:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Inuit18 reported by User:Ahmed shahi (Result: Both warned)

I am improving the article Ahmad Shah Durrani but Inuit18 is preventing me from doing so. Anything I add to the articles Ahmad Shah Durrani or Durrani the user just removes it. This user was restricted to a 1 revert-per-day in 2009 and I think the same should apply again. User_talk:Inuit18#Possible_unblock. Ahmed shahi (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict of sources regarding his birthplace, Multan versus Herat. When different editors consider the birthplace so extremely significant, it may suggest that it is part of an ethnic edit war. (That is, which ethnic group should be allowed to claim this famous person). Extremely careful wording is needed in such a case. Since you surely have some ability to negotiate, why don't you see if you can work out a compromise? It should be OK to mention both alleged birthplaces, and the sources which support each one. If those efforts fail, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmad Shahi is trying to push his own POV in the article. He is claiming that Gholam Mohammad Ghobar and Dr Singh used a particular primary source without giving accurate references to this. I have Gholam Mohammad Ghobar's book on Ahmad Shah Durrani and he did not make such a claim. the only primary source Ghobar used was Tarikh Ahmad Shahi that I added to the article and he did not use this source for Durrani's birthplace but for Durrani's invasion of India. EdJohnston I have numerously told User:Ahmad Shahi to discuss his sources first in the talkpage and to confirm that these historians used primary sources and for everyone to reach a consensus before editing the article but he has ignored this and has been disruptive for the past 2 weeks on wikipedia.--Inuit18 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inuit18, how am I disruptive? I'm not pushing anyone to believe the Herat birth place. I go by what reliable sources claim and then add their information to the article. Afghan historian, Ghobar (1943), Dr. Ganda Singh (1959), Willem Vogelsang (2002), Frank Clements (2003), and L. R. Reddy (2002) are all reliable secondary sources and they all claim Herat. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources.

To EdJohnston, here are Inuit18's latest edits made to Ahmad Shah Durrani article:

1. He or she places a fake non-existing source in the article
2. Then he or she removes properly sourced quotation from the article
3. Then he or she removes more accurate information from the article and makes a claim that Ahmad Shah Durrani proclaimed himself Amir of Khorasan in Kandahar, which is nothing but a view point of the editor
4. He or she is not telling the truth about having Ghulam Mohammad Ghobar's book (Tareekh-e Ahmad Shah Baba in 1943) because in that book it clearly mentions Herat as the birth place of Ahmad Shah. This book is extremely rare to find which is furhter proof that Inuit18 is making up things. Inuit18 is only interested in edit-warring with other editors, his aim here is to get me blocked instead of negotiating and finding a solution.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for an edit war in that article. I have been telling you for a week now to stop editing the article before discussing it in the talkpage. Abdali indeed did refer to himself as Khorasan's Amir and a very reliable source is used for this claim so please don't use this against me. I haven't removed the theory you added that Abdali was born in Herat but I simply asked you to provide more information about the primary source you added because I have Ghobar's book and no where does it mention this. If you think I am lying then please provide those pages from Ghobar's book where he states he used that particular primary source. Please be reasonable. Wikipedia is not the right place for you if you are trying to push for your POV. Plus, Ghobar is a famous historian and his books are printed every few years.--Inuit18 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have given you enough sources that confirm Tarikh Ahmad Shahi's (Ahmad Shah's History) authenticity and all of my comments about it is in the talkpage. Here I will post one of the links again here that confirms is as a primary source: "al-Hussaini, Mahmud ibn Ibrahim. 1974 [c. 1773]. Tarikh-i Ahmad Shahi. 2 vols. Ed. D. Saidmuradov. Moscow. U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences." [al-Hussaini, Mahmud ibn Ibrahim. 1974 [c. 1773]. Tarikh-i Ahmad Shahi. 2 vols. Ed. D. Saidmuradov. Moscow. U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences.] [17] --Inuit18 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope EdJohnston can get a better insight by visiting the talkpage [18]. Before I changed the article I gave an explanation about my edits and other changes I made in the article.--Inuit18 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To Inuit18, you do not own the article on Ahmad Shah Durrani. Therefore, anyone knowledgeable is permitted to edit it.

1. You began reverting my edits on February 17, without explaining anything and without discussing anything on the talk pages.
2. It was on February 22, that you first began discussing
3. I'm explaining to you once again that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources so please stop asking me to provide primary sources, and please stop removing properly sourced quotation from the article. That quotation you keep removing comes from a reliable secondary source
4. Saying stuff like I have a book here with me and it states such and such is Wikipedia:Orignal research. I'm certain that you do not have Ghobar's book. You don't even know the correct book's name, which is Tareekh-e Ahmad Shah Baba (1943) by Ghulam Mohammad Ghobar and it has to have Ahmad Shah's birth place. It makes so sense not to, and if you have this book tell us the answer and provide the page number.
5. That other book information you are posting twice above is useless because it cannot be verified. It may be another fake non-existing book information.
6. I have no idea what you mean when you say: "I have given you enough sources that confirm Tarikh Ahmad Shahi's..." Tarikh Ahmad Shahi's only translates to History of Ahmad Shah. Many different books by different authors are named Tarikh Ahmad Shahi's so what are you saying. Please understand that I don't care where he was born, the article needed to mention both. Before I started editing it only mentioned Multan and Britannica link was used the reference, but Britannica stated Multan or Herat and that's when I decided to add Herat. I hope you understand my point and let's discuss this at Talk:Ahmad_Shah_Durrani#Birthplace instead of here on EdJohnston's page.

Thanks, Ahmed shahi (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your warning

I don't know whether to laugh or whip at the warning you placed on my talk page. If you care to do me a favor, delete every page related to my account. It won't be used anymore. DrorK (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One other remark - think well why you put time and effort into this project called Wikipedia. I think most people have forgotten. I suspect you are among them. DrorK (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the result, and the message has been received, loud and clear. Thank you for your careful consideration of all aspects of this case. I will never violate 3RR on any article to do with Palestine (or any other subject) ever again. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulation Tiamut. You managed to liberate Palestine from the Zionists. Well, on Wikipedia. You know, for many years Arabs, most particularly Palestinians, learned geography from maps drawn in 1948 before the State of Israel was established. They refused to recognize the reality that emerged under their nose. They also refused to recognized the history of the country they claimed to cherish, because the truth was too hard for them to bear. It took many years until they realized how damaging was ignoring the truth. You have been successful in importing this old damaging way of thinking into Wikipedia. You were devoted and diligent enough to build a network of affiliates to support you and to foster your campaign. You would make a very good politician. But like many politicians you tend to fall in love with your campaign and forget that what people need is to face truth, because the alternative is much worse. This used to be the guiding moral principle of Wikipedia. You corrupted it with a lot of success. Now you can rejoice at your victory. DrorK (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Drork,

You know next to nothing about me or what I think.

I claim no victory here, because this is not a WP:BATTLE, no matter how much you wish to see it that way. My main interest here is helping to write a people's encyclopedia. I'm glad that I will still be able to do that.

Happy Purim. Tiamut^talk 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Dear EdJohnston, I agree with your request, which was in line with my logic as well, not to add or remove Hindustani scripts until a new consensus has been reached. Thanks for peacefully trying to resolve the report. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that removing your "31 March" clause would be a good idea. I think your suggestion would be better if you stated "until a consensus is reached at the new discussion." The current discussion has been going on for quite some time and it is unlikely that it will be resolved by 31 March. I would appreicate if you could think about this. Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing from you soon, Anupam^Talk 01:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can change that. Will you agree to not add or remove the Urdu script until a consensus is reached, no matter how long it takes? EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, granted that User:Shshshsh must also agree not to tamper with Hindi-Urdu scripts on Bollywood related film articles. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Seth Material

I don't know where I'm supposed to respond to you, so I responded on my own Talk page.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not violate policy

Hey! I respectfully disagree with your statement that I violated policy. A consensus never was and probably will never be. Throughout the discussion Anupam had cited some discussions claiming they were consensus. What User:Taxman said is not correct. Anupam is yet yet to prove that Bollywood is not Hindi cinema but actually Hindi-Urdu. I started removing scripts as I found out he was canvassing editors to participate in the discussion (another act which was ignored by administrators). Removing scripts is not edit warring, reverting scripts is. And he is the one who violated 3RR, not me. In fact, I stopped reverting him and he kept it like a machine. The worst thing about it is that he is very sure that he has done the right thing. If I have to be blocked for others, no problem, it would make many things clear to me. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Taxman is a Wikipedia Bureaucrat who was not a primary party to the issue and objectively assessed that there was a previous consensus on the issue (even before I was an editor here). Please do not accuse me of canvassing. From the beginning, I encouraged everyone to participate in the discussion so we could have the voice of the Wikipedia Community to neutrally determine what should be the outcome of the current discussion. I even posted the discussion at two noticeboards: here and here so that we could get as many views as possible on the issue. The editor whom I invited never had contact with me before and even gave your party a warning for making a personal attack against me. 99% of the Wikipedia Community, including the Wikipedia Bureaucracy/Administration acknowledges that there was a previous consensus on the issue; you decided to ignore the current discussion as well as the previous consensuses and this is not right. You recently removed the Urdu script from My Name Is Khan even though the film itself presents both in its opening credits. I respectfully asked you to stop removing Urdu scripts from Bollywood related film articles. I, in turn, stated that I would not add Urdu to any untouched Bollywood related film article and I kept true to this commitment. Even here, the reviewing administrator asked for the exact same thing that I politely requested in the beginning, to not add/remove scripts from Bollywood film articles until a new consensus is reached. My reverts simply restored the articles to their neutral condition before the discussion started. I hope this clears things up. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, you have not only violated WP:CANVASS and WP:EDIT WAR, you have also been wikilawyering. 99% of the editors agreed that there was consensus? Except for you and Taxman, no one ever said that there was consensus. Please do read WP:BUREAUCRAT before putting too much authority on a bureaucrat's hand. He is not here to determine the bottom line. And if you think there was consensus, I kindly request you to read my last post here. The discussions you have repeatedly cited had no consensus at all. Still, you conveniently violated WP:3RR, and nothing justifies that, particularly when the existence of a previous consensus is debatable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not decline it. I'm not here to edit war, I'm here to improve articles. Adding or removing scripts is not among my preferable edits on Wikipedia, and I don't enjoy them in any way, if you ever thought so. But one thing is clear, who did violate and who did not. I did not, Anupam did. In fact, his are the last reverts and he crossed the three reverts, while I did not. And it seems to have been overlooked. No? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was indeed established here: "That seemed to be the consensus among the editors here and people have been adding Devanagari titles to movies (or Arabic/Urdu script, if they can do that). If you know Hindi and Devanagari, feel free to start adding the titles. Zora 05:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)";here "'It appears that there's a pretty good consensus to leave Urdu script' gren グレン 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)." By the way, the latter comment is from User:Grenavitar, another Wikipedia Administrator who was not a party to the debate and objectively declared this statement. Also, in response to your accusation, "the short version is that Shahid is acting in violation of the consensus and is edit warring." This statement was made by a Wikipedia Bureaucrat, who also was not a primary party in the debate but one who objectively looked at the situation and drew a conclusion. Res ipsa loquitur, Anupam^Talk 19:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

But why do you ignore the last message "There is no consensus reached on this page." - which no one replied to? When the existence of a consensus is debatable, then there's no consensus. See WP:WHATISCONSENSUS and WP:CCC. And do not forget Zora's message one year later in which she declared the poll and the discussions as dead.

BTW, consensus is not one of the exceptions to 3RR, which you violated and used the non-existent "consensus" as an excuse.

And finally, I think we should stop discussing this issue through EfJohnston's talk page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect your decision, but I still feel I must tell you what my opinion is.

You said "Anupam was willing to agree to a standstill but Shshshsh was not." - did I not say I did not decline your proposal? See the above message. I would expect you to change your message.

Secondly, since you are an admin, I must tell you that an injustice was done. I was accused by you of edit warring while Anupam is the one who violated 3RR, a violation which was, honestly enough, not taken care of by you. You also said that I'm an optimist if I think my words will convince administrators here, this sarcastic note was not nice, particularly considering that you did not ignore Anupam's mentions of a non-existent consensus.

I'm looking forward to your reply. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been away, so my response has been delayed for a few days. My 3RR summary, where I said you had declined my proposal, was based on not seeing any response by you to my last question at User talk:Shshshsh#You are edit warring about use of Urdu script in film articles. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, Brazil again

Ed, more Brazilian irritations. See here and so on. I'd be grateful if you'd attempt to keep an eye on this stuff, dreary though it is. -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Verbal's talk page.
Message added 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Verbal chat 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope my response hasn't disappointed you in any way. Feel free to contact me further, by message or email. Best, Verbal chat 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Walsh

I have endevored to add to the coverate of Lawrence Walsh over the past few weeks. My comments have been deleted several times by a person who describes himself as a "public interest" attorney. My comments about Walsh are as follows:

Mr. Walsh brought an indictment of Weinberger out of grand jury four days prior to the 1992 general election, which conflicted with longstanding Justice Department policy of not bringing an indictment out of a grand jury after August of an election. It has been widely viewed that Walsh’s action was politically motivated and was the determining factor in Bill Clinton’s election. The one count indictment was thrown out by U.S. Federal Judge Thomas Hogan on December 11, 1992 on the grounds that it had violated the five year statute of limitation. See http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/12/us/charge-in-weinberger-case-that-caused-furor-before-election-is-thrown-out.html?pagewanted=1

This is a sourced comment and is accurate. It should be added to Walsh's bio, which has been locked by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamo.texas (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alamo.texas. You have only two edits on Wikipedia, one of which is your comment here. If you think the article should be modified, please offer your proposed change (verbatim) on the talk page of the article. Nothing prevents you using the talk page. I think the point you wanted to make is already in the text of the article, but if you think something should be added to that, please create some proposed wording. The article already says "Clinton administration attorney Lanny Davis called the decision to indict a week before the election rather than after the election "bizarre."[2]" I agree that the timing of Walsh's action does sound bizarre, but my opinion does not matter, and if you are the same editor as the IP, you should note that your original change did not include any source, so the claim of a BLP violation ('unsourced defamation') was valid. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked I.P. inciting a threat on Sottolacqua

Dude, you better go do something about that I.P. you blocked on 3/1/10. He's inciting a "massive edit war" within this YouTube video I just discovered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U-dCgwY294

--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Chris

Wait a minute, I have just found out that the YouTube user who posted the video has removed it following a suspension threat. Never mind.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Chris

Seth Material

This is a total hoot! I'm not the one who restored the old version of this article! It looks like I'm not the only one who doesn't like what's going on!--Caleb Murdock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.20.215 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that you did something to the article so that people who are signed on with just IP addresses can't edit it. Also, you must have assumed that it was me who restored the old version. But it wasn't me, so that means you've blocked someone who wasn't necessarily acting as a sock puppet.

I have an idea. Why don't you just set up a test: people who are skeptics or atheists or right-wing Christians or just cranks are allowed to edit the article, but people who believe that New Age topics have notability are banned from it. Better yet, why don't you ban all the people on Wikipedia who are interested in building articles instead of tearing them down?

Since you banned me from the article, I've been reading a lot of people's talk pages, and there are a lot of editors who are unhappy and disgruntled. There's a lot of bullying going on by self-appointed experts like Verbal, and by the administrators who bend the rules to back them up, like you.--Caleb Murdock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.20.215 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a privately-owned web site. I hope you are not surprised that Wikipedia has policies, and we expect people to follow them. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the policies are bad policies. Editors should be asked to avoid making heavy revisions to subjects they know nothing about. Furthermore, there should be a daily limit to the number of edits anyone can make. The people who spend 8 hours a day on Wikipedia are not necessarily good for the encyclopedia. Once an editor has exhausted his knowledge, any further input he has to make is of dubious value.

I'm not going to start harassing you now, but I just want to make a couple more points: When Verbal came to the Seth Material article 2 years ago, the first thing he did was to attempt a stealth deletion by redirecting it back to Jane Roberts. When other editors reversed that, he redirected it again. When you try to delete the hard work of other authors without any discussion, that's a call to arms. Then he started to dredge up one objection after another: not notable, not neutral, in-universe, fringe, and a few others I can't remember. He was grasping at straws. His behavior was always autocratic and confrontational, and it was always impossible for me to assume good faith. If he hadn't come on so strong, things would have been different. I agree that I can be quite shrill at times, but I always felt like I was under attack.

So now the Seth Material article sits with no knowledgeable editors to develop or improve it. That's a fine situation. Verbal and his friends are limited in the "improvements" they can make since they don't know the subject matter, so all they can do is make cuts and add skeptical comments. Eventually they'll redirect it or delete it and the encyclopedia will be without an article on a worthy topic.

God, the stupidity just never ends! In order to leave this note, I had to sign off and sign back on again. MY ISP USES FLOATING IP ADDRESSES.--Caleb Murdock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.1.248 (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why you can't log in to edit my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is not logging in some kind of violation? If so, I didn't know that. Basically, I'm just disgusted and I don't want to log in any more. I'd rather participate anonymously now, if I participate at all.

By the way, blocking any IP I am editing from will block hundreds, possibly thousands, of Verizon customers. That person who reverted the article to a previous version wasn't a Verizon customer -- that wasn't a Verizon IP. (But I'm still thrilled to know that someone else cares enough about the article to have done that.) I made one tiny edit (adding a period that was needed) just to see what would happen. I said before that doing the sock puppet thing wasn't worth the annoyance, and it isn't.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Caleb, editing from IPs when you have an account is evidence of attempting to avoid the scrutiny of other editors. That is generally forbidden here and is often a cause of disruption. Just log in. Any continued disruption, personal attacks, socking, or other dubious actions will only lessen the chances of you regaining any semblance of credibility here, and that is your most valuable asset here. We all make mistakes, and if we do occasionally goof up, other editors who know our reputation will AGF. If you don't have a good reputation, the opposite will occur when you make a mistake. Don't expect me to call that fair, but that's life, so guard your reputation well. Be collaborative, friendly, don't assume bad faith, make accusations, or make personal attacks. Above all, stay away from conspiracy theories. That would make you look like a crackpot. I truly hope you will heed this advice. If I didn't care about your fate here, I wouldn't have bothered to take the time to write this advice. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a small note: I'm not right wing either. Maybe editors shouldn't comment on things they don't have knowledge of? :) Further attacks and now IP socking are not helping your case at all, and are barring you from helping to improve the article, and from having any input on how the article will be changed. You are actively hurting your (sole) interest on wikipedia. Verbal chat 21:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

If I understand your note correctly, you are saying that adding or deleting large amounts of material is defined as a major change that must have consensus. Tom added an entire new section of over 5000mb, without any discussion whatsoever, which I did move from the article to the talk page to discuss, and to see if a consensus existed for the addition. Without any discussion, my edit was reverted. The article now includes this material, in spite of no consensus, and in spite of the fact that half the regular editors do not support the addition. So, at this point what should be done. Should not the material be deleted until such time that a consensus exists for its addition to the article? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no need for you to move it to the talk page for discussion. It could easily have been discussed while it remained in the article. If this was brand-new content, his addition was not a revert, but your removal of it *was* a revert. If these episodes continue, it may be necessary to impose a 1RR at Shakespeare authorship question, or to sanction the individual editors who revert before discussion is finished. EdJohnston (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Still confused - isn't the addition of of a huge chuck of material a major change that required discussion before it was added. By the way, you did impose a 1 RR on all the article editors, which has been violated by both Tom and Nishidani. So my second question is - why has this been allowed?Smatprt (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm really trying to understand what appears to be a double standard here. Smatprt (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR is not yet active, since I only asked for opinions on that idea. It would have been sensible for the 'bardolatry' material to be discussed before being added, but its addition is not formally a revert. My comment on the article Talk could have been worded better. EdJohnston (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I understand that the addition was not a revert. And I understand that my deletion and Tom's "undue" were both reverts, right? But my understanding from your previous instructions was that any major change (and adding a huge new section is certainly that) was to be discussed on the talk page first. That is the part of the process that was ignored by Tom. Was that not your previous instruction? If not, what is to keep any editor from adding major sections that lack consensus to be there in the first place? Smatprt (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, it is becoming more and more difficult to improve this article with Smatprt's POV deletions and additions. Any kind of effort at discussion ends up in a gridlock. His strategy is to wear out his interlocutors so they will give in in disgust. We went round and round for 15,000 words or better to discuss one sentence. He challenges historic records as opinion, not fact, (which actually is anti-Stratfordism in a nutshell), and he jams in qualifiers to sourced statements in an effort to slant the depiction because he actually believes that the scholarly consensus about Shakespeare is nothing more than an opinion based on job security for lit professors and the Stratford touris industry. He deletes material unsympathetic to Oxford under the auspices of "too much detail" or some other excuse. He and his cohorts believe this article should only consist of anti-Stratfordian arguments, which is obvious if you read their comments, and act as a promotional piece for Oxfordism, the way the Oxfordian theory article is now. He and his cohorts consistently accuse others of editing in bad faith or in abusive conduct, while staying just shy of crossing over the line into actionable offense. When their opponents out of frustration retaliate in the same manner, they hysterically denounce their opponents as abusive and ask them to please stop offending their hurt feelings. It would be funny if it were not so transparent.

I don't know what to do about it or even whether Wikipedia is concerned about how they abuse Wikipedia policies for their own ends. If you could offer up some advice I'd appreciate it. Several good Wikipedians have told me they won't work with him on any page because of his disruptive editing. This type of frustration does not lead to good articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: This latest example illustrates my point: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=next&oldid=348356425 (check the previous edits). There is no doubt that a previous version of Hamlet existed' there are literary allusions to it and a record of its performance. Yet Smatprt is claiming that its existence is "hypothetical" and that any reference to it should be labeled as such. Similarly, he trolls through the page and inserts "speculates" or "according to" in front of any statement made by orthodox scholars, as if their conclusions were merely so much bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&action=historysubmit&diff=348344776&oldid=348294927 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&action=historysubmit&diff=348053554&oldid=348051543.

That would be the pot calling the kettle black. And a pack of mistruths, as well. Check the word count and you will see that the great majority (by far) of those 15000 words were added by Tom and Nishidani, not by me. For goodness sake, the two of them even spent several hundred words arguing between themselves over the use of "the" or "a". Here, as in the article, Tom uses "scholarly consensus" fast and loose and attributes a believe to me that I do not have. Frankly, the "Too much detail" has been my gentle way of saying that Tom is constantly adding material in an attempt to distract the reader and as a tool for slanting the article towards his POV. He constantly states opinions as fact and refuses to make attributions, instead labeling every rebuttal as "scholarly consensus". And the truth is that "several good Wikipedians" are just really angry because they have failed to bully me off the project, as they have done with so many others. Smatprt (talk)

For goodness sake, the two of them even spent several hundred words arguing between themselves over the use of "the" or "a".

Come now, Smatprt. That is caricature by hyperbole. I made a brief distinction, Tom dissented. I did not press the point, even though here Tom agreed with 'your side'. I think he missed a crucial distinction, but consensus lay otherwise. You see, Tom and I, and Paul Barlow would and have disagreed on much, enlighten each other, press or yield according to evidence. his is the way editors should behave. I see no such inframural disagreement on points in the de Verean block you belong to.

The length I and a few others have gone to is not verbosity for verbosity's sake. It is a matter of trying to lay forth in detail the reasons why much of what you do is done in blithe ignorance of the scholarship on that period. I expect you read much of the de Verean writings, but you seem to have a very shaky understanding of mainstream scholarship. Therefore, when we see constant rewritings trying to score a point, we are constrained by WP:AGF to try our best to lay forth the intricate issues you glide over. I did this painstakingly with your massive misprision about 'Mute Swan'. It had no effect, you didn't listen, and kept what is an embarrassingly piece of fringe trivia, which I think no serious de Verean would be comfortable with, on the page, simply because of the thousands of points made, this captured your attention. I can understand your not having a grasp of what scholarly method means in practice, but you seem only to read wiki rules to see where there you may gain a tactical advantage, ignoring its central aim: to ensure that high quality articles, based on the best sources, are written. It doesn't help either than your feel for English is defective. Articles related to Shakespearean issues should be particularly attentive to this.

It is not for admins to decide for or against a party, and we annoy them by these badgering recourses. Once the lead is agreed to, I would be happy to withdraw from the article for a month or two, (I would hope Tom and Paul might agree), and give you three full rein/reign, if you seriously undertake to pull it into some shape that would merit a B grade qualification. As it stands it's a goddamn awful mess of patchy takes, in a riotous disorder, full of questionable terminology and phrasing. Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, of all people [[19]], is lecturing on what a good editor is??? Sorry to see those same tactics have been brought to the authorship page. Smatprt (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that someone with a block history like Smatprt's would use this as an accusation illustrates my point about his strategy: anything goes, as long as you win. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In my whole history of 4 years here, I had in the first three months 2 minor suspensions from 3RR infractions (one of the two out of my sheer ignorance of procedures, and both, please note, against editors permabanned from wikipedia for abusive editing and sockpuppetry). Of the complaints made thereafter, none held up. See my page. I have no wish to contest the I/P Arbcom decision. It was a collective cleansing of editors, on one ostensibly intractible issue, where the procedure thereafter established underwrote the correctness of the point I, and others, had been making, which was that 120 RS overwhelmingly support the position that 'Judea and Samaria' is politicized terminology not appropriate to wikipedia's neutral voice. See the extensive, and academic essay, I wrote on the topic on my homepage. If getting a point as critical as this established in a neutral global encyclopedia means I must pay the penalty of never writing on that subject, so be it. The damage intended was truncated, and neutrality has been secured. I probably shouldn't even say this, in respect of that decision, but if you question my integrity, I will run the risk. Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary pause

What if Smatprt and Tom Reedy would voluntarily refrain from editing Shakespeare authorship question for 90 days? Since others are working on the article, this might defuse the situation and allow enough tranquillity for some restructuring to occur. I have no opinion on whether restructuring is needed, but others seem to think it should be done. If you guys would accept a voluntary deal, it would take the pressure off admins. If there is no voluntary deal, and this goes back to ANI, you are taking the risk of a long dispute there which may have unpredictable results. I could also take admin action on my own, but prefer to avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly be willing to do that. I've got other projects that have been suffering because of this article and perhaps the constant cramp in my shoulders would ease after such a holiday from this, although I have no fear about what results would come out of ANI, and I believe it will end up there sometime in the future anyway. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I thought I posted the message below earlier, but apparently I missed an edit conflict notice when I hit save, probably when you posted your last message. As you can see from what I wrote, I'm new here and already very fed up with this process. I will have no interest in continuing to work on this article if Smatprt takes a leave. Sincerely, Schoenbaum (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I don't know the rules like the others. But Smatprt, Ben Jonson and I -- the three non-Stratfordians in the group (Tom, Paul and Nishidani keep saying that we are all "Oxfordians," but I'm not advocating for any candidate) -- have been working in good faith. But the issue is so contentious that it's truly difficult for the two sides to reach consensus. What appears to them to be nitpicking and intransigence -- arguing over seemingly minor points -- is not our intention at all. These are difficult and subtle issues, and we're trying to grapple with them as best we can. Tom proposed starting at the top and going one sentence at a time to try to reach a consensus. We agreed, and have been trying to do that. It's been a slow process partly because Tom, Paul and Nishidani keep jumping around to other issues, ignoring the agreed process. Tom's recent major addition without discussion is a good example. There may be no rule about such informal agreements, but it makes progress difficult when they act as if they aren't bound by it without bothering to revisit it if they see problems with it. Nishidani recently made a change to the very sentence we were discussing, without consensus. It was a provocative act, which I think could only have been deliberate, as I said at the time. Based on my brief experience, it is all too typical of the three of them. They appear to be trying to make the process as difficult as possible to try to drive us away. Frankly, I have little faith that anything good can come of this. It makes me think the issue is so contentious that consensus is impossible, and two articles are needed -- one from each point of view. If it can't be done on Wikipedia, perhaps we should go our separate ways and put articles on our own websites, where you can refer people to them if you are willing to do that. Otherwise, I'm very discouraged. Does Wikipedia have an alternative process for dealing with such situations, or would it be willing to consider one? Schoenbaum (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.