User talk:EdJohnston

Idiot and retarded comments

I saw that you closed on Nableezy's AE. I think that request was not really that bad but the last comment before closing jumped out.[1] If he wants to refer to your comment as retarded it isn't a big deal but when he tells another that he is an idiot then straight out says he doesn't care if he is blocked it is too far. So did you take this into account on your close (it was unrelated) or is yet another AE the next step? If you missed it then no worries. Another AE might be the next step (although everyone therer is begging for blocks for just being there)/ But, enough is enough. He has been to AE for being uncivil already and that was too much. So when does it stop?Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll let another admin handle that if they wish to. Just now I'm trying to think of a response to the general deterioration of I-P editing which Phil Knight pointed out. Some people have become very angry who are usually not that angry. And it's not just a few enthusiasts like Drork, it's the regular I-P editors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So can you answer if you took this into consideration while closing? Simple yes or no with no elaboration required. If not, I will open a new case.Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not see this before I closed. File away. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably stupid on my part (hardly anyone has clean hands in the topic area, unfortunately) but done. Thank you for the quick response.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So the case against him closes - and User:Nableezy is threatening new editors, yet again.--Nopleazy (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Despite Martintg's undertaking, he appears to be continuing to become involved in block disputes. This case involves User:Marknutley. Martintg is certainly aware that although Marknutley is topic-banned from Climate Change articles, the procedures taken against him began because of his edits to articles from which Martintg is topic-banned. One editor clearly states in the discussion thread, "However, TDF, Radeksz and Mark (and others) are all involved in a hot content dispute at Holodomor and Communist terrorism. Martintg's involvement in discussion of the block of an editor involved Communist terrorism was the original basis of my posting to AE. TFD (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is confusing, but I think Martintg was commenting at ANI on an SPI which was filed against him by Petri. Defending himself seems reasonable. The AE that you filed was about him trying to defend someone else, and he agreed to stop doing that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Although he brought up an SPI filed against him, he was commenting on a discussion thread about an editor who was the subject of an SPI for accounts editing both CC articles and EE articles, although this thread was about possible legal threats on his talk page.[2] TFD (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lvivske

I respect albeit disagree with your decision regarding Lvivske's breaching of WP:3RR. However he made two serious, unfounded accusations against me for meatpuppeting and sockpuppeting, which is absolutely ridiculous considering DonaldDuck is a well established editor with whom I've never had any personal ties to in the past. This is considered a personal attack and I do not wish to ignore it, since I find this sort of behavior (blind personal accusations due to a content dispute) reprehensible. The fact that he has not filed a sockpuppet report against me is evidence that he does not take his own accusations seriously, and meant it as an attack. LokiiT (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I never accused you of sock puppetry, only raised the question of possible WP:MEAT, but I csn see in the diffs now that he joined in after you posted the Goble question on another filing, and after he was quickly denounced as towing fringe accusations, thats when he joined in on the editing of the page in similar fashion to you. I'm all for further discussion on the article, and I encourage you to take part; just keep the CIA conspiracy out of it or we'll end up back where we started.--Львівське (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I never breached 3RR so calm down. In the 3 diffs where I countered you, I added sources, so was just following WP:PROVIT following your removal of sources/content. Blanking entire sections is far more disruptive than what you're claiming against me. Calm down.--Львівське (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You never breached 3RR, yet you made 5 reverts in some 24 hours. Interesting. You never accused me of sockpuppetry, you only threatened to file a sockpuppet report. Interesting again. Moreover, telling people to "calm down" during a dispute in which you're involved, which you've done repeatedly, is inflammatory and condescending. Further, your accusations that my good faith edits were vandalism is another personal attack. If this were the case, how is it that you've agreed to my original blanking of said content? This is getting out of hand and I would like EdJohnston to look into it, please. I'm not going to continue arguing with someone who so blatantly assumes bad faith and throws out personal attacks and unfounded accusations in every second line. This is exactly what drove me away from wikipedia for so long; that and the administration's lack of dealing with people like you.LokiiT (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I never agreed to your blanking of the content, I just can't deal with your psychosis any more today. I said I'll put it on hold to get more sources together to plug a hole in this BS you're instigating. I brought up filing a sockpuppet case simply because it would be a natural course of action given how you are escalating this dispute to more and more vitriolic levels. 5 reverts in 24hrs? another source, rv section blanking,adding a journal....the only time I engaged in a full out reverts without adding content to justify its inclusion was to combat section blanking without cause 4, where you're coming up with this 5 reverts story is beyond me. And yes, I say calm down because you seriously need to take a breath and step away from the keyboard. Maybe you should take another wiki-break if you can't act with civility without getting stressed out. There isn't anything to look into further, just cooperate reasonably on the talk page of the article and no conflict will arise.--Львівське (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Psychosis? Really? Proving my point yet again. LokiiT (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Lvivske 24 hours for personal attacks, per this notice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding the article lock, it seems pointless now since Lvivske has finally conceded his position[3] and agreed to leave the content out. LokiiT (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The protection may lead to some discussion, which is beneficial. I'll take another look tomorrow. Since User:DonaldDuck is a long-time editor with an interest in Russian topics, it is hard to take seriously any suggestion of meat puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Duck

Hi, Ed! An IP sock of SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) has just announced herself on another user's page[4]. Would you consider blocking the IP as a formality? It's been tagged, and I know IPs can't be blocked forever, but this is a banned user who refuses to stop socking. Thank you :> Doc talk 05:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly disregard. The troll emerged with a vengeance[5][6] to proudly proclaim it was an editor she helped "go over the edge", JohnBonaccorsi (talk · contribs), and I believe she's right. I don't expect too much admin help with this one in general (they seem to drop off like flies after getting involved). Thanks anyway! Doc talk 06:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Further sockpuppetry by BrianBeahr

Indefinitely block editor User:BrianBeahr is back in action again - as sockpuppet User:Black00001 - on the St Kilda Football Club and related articles. Thanks in advance for attending to this. Afterwriting (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

.... and again with St00001. Thanks. Jevansen (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done also, I see that Black00001 and St00001 were created only three minutes apart on November 4. This could make it worthwhile to open a new SPI and ask the checkusers to look for sleeper accounts, if one of you is so inclined. Sleepers are a supply of new socks that have been created but not used yet. Checkusers might also find the IP used to create these accounts and block it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ginsburgh/Inbari

Thanks for your post on my page -- I'm happy to discuss further. I'm doubtful about the appropriateness of omitting the sentence you refer to, though. The fact is, Ginsburgh did encourage and support the killing of non-Jews as in the Goldstein incident. So it's hard for me to see how Inbari's analysis is off-track here. This is what appears earlier in the section on the Ginsburgh article, and it really ought to be non-controversial to quote Inbari to this effect. It isn't really synthesis even -- it is simply Inbari explaining how Ginsburgh got to the position that he had in fact adopted at the time of Goldstein. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that further discussion by the editors at Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh or at BLPN may come around to your view. Still, the admins at 3RR need to use the 20,000-foot view of BLP, and this is the hardest sentence to justify at present. If the article is protected, some admin will have to decide what to keep in the article. The fact that the BLPN debate is still running works against your side of this dispute. You should be willing to wait until the review is concluded. If the other guy keeps trying to beautify the article after the BLP issue has been answered as well as it can be, a block for long-term warring might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it seems difficult to justify because it seems so extreme. But again the fact is that Ginsburgh really did say these things, and Inbari is analyzing what he actually said. I think it's also worth noting that no-one has voiced any support of M656's view (and at least one editor against). But: I'm happy to agree to restoration minus that one sentence as a solution for now, with further discussion at BLPN and the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I looked into it further and left a comment at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Floating point

Actually I believe the IP's edit is better at Floating point. Why didn't the person reverting a second time put a comment on the talk page? If they then ignored that perhaps go further but blocking IP's for what at worst would be low level edit warring seems inappropriate to me. It's not as though they have three reverts yet even. Dmcq (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Since November 2 I saw three different IPs reverting the same thing from the article, without discussing on the talk page. At the time, I suspected socking, but maybe that's not the case. Reverting without discussion is one of the criteria often used for edit warring, which does not require three reverts. If a consensus were to form at Talk:Floating point that semiprotection is undesirable, it might be lifted. How would you feel about 'coefficient' instead of significand? That idea was previously floated on talk. Certainly the IPs can still join the talk discussion that you started, if they feel like explaining their objection to 'significand.' EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanking Information

Removal of sourced information by User:Paweł5586 here: [7]. (I would revert but is there a limit of one revert per user or per day by any user on this page?)Faustian (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning for Paweł5586 that he may be blocked. The article called Massacres of Poles in Volhynia is under a 1RR restriction due to WP:DIGWUREN. Most people who break the 1RR there are willing to self-revert, and only two editors have needed extra persuasion. Unfortunately, Paweł5586 is one of the two, and time is running out. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've punched my revert card for the day and am taking a step back. Considering he removed content that others were willing to discuss (and is being discussed on the talk page), that he had to remove neutral statements like "numbers are still being discussed" to insert his high-range numbers, etc. I just didn't see anything salvageable that I was willing to work around. I spent some good time yesterday trying to clean the article up and get it as neutral as possible and it seems with Pawel in the loop it's going to be a constant struggle. --Львівське (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Update to 3RR report you handled

It turns out the IP editor discussed at this 3RR report that you handled also edited with an account (User:Mark Osgatharp) to circumvent the IP block and page protection. He also made personal attacks related to the incident. I posted an update on noticeboard and thought you might want to take a look. Cheers! Novaseminary (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Teramo

Hi! As expected, the Teramo bull returned with a revertion to a version full of wikimistakes and ignorance of how a serious encyclopedia should be written (just to mention one, the fact he addresses the user as "you can reach"...). This without the matter of which version is to be preferred has been settled. Can you help? Thanks and good work --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a block of DDF19483 (talk · contribs). Your own actions there can be questioned. You should ask for a WP:Third opinion, or use some other kind of WP:Dispute resolution, before you make any more reverts at Teramo. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your remarkable change of view on Headbomb's talk page

Hi EdJohnston:

I was surprised to read your abrupt change of views from attempting to dissuade Headbomb from continuing to searching for means to impose sanctions.

I am concerned that you may have been swayed by Headbomb's incorrect allegation "that Brews behaviour has been problematic there as well) making statements about the physical nature of things such as "As discussed in more detail below, Einstein's theory of relativity significantly modifies this view." in Pythagorean theorem and reference physics books such as The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, by Roger Penrose, to argue his points".

My original statement provides explicitly the text I introduced, and points out carefully that Headbomb's allegation above is unfounded. A careful comparison of the text before any changes made by myself supports my statement that the Penrose reference and the comment about Einstein precede my changes and I am not responsible for them, and did not add this remark about a later discussion of special relativity, or comment upon physics in any way.

Perhaps you have other reasons for changing your mind in this matter, but it would be unfortunate if it were a result of uncritical acceptance of Headbomb's misinformation.

I regret that I will be leaving town in a few hours and will be unable to pursue this matter further for several days. Brews ohare (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I still recommend that the case be closed by accepting your offer to observe a 1RR/week on all articles regarding natural science. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

About the warning

OK! undertood, btw are you willing to mediate, there are mediators on wikipedia, under the terms of the arbitration, how come there isn't any here? How should I deal with a user who moved a page withou concensus? Magotteers (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban - cont.

User:Martintg has now jumped into a discussion about Karl Marx, who was an influence on Eastern European governments during the Communist era. This seems to be a violation of his topic ban. Could you please look into this. I did mention earlier that Martintg had violated his topic ban when he intervened to support User:Marknutley, who has been indefinitely banned.[8] TFD (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you are edit-warring at Karl Marx on the Belgian story of the 5,000 francs. If you believe consensus has been reached to remove this material, can you say where? The Karl Marx article is not in Eastern Europe. At the moment we are discussing Marx is trying to rouse the masses in Belgium, France and Germany (Köln), places which sound western to me. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a mistake...

I didn't have a chance to reply before now (I was busy with stuff, which is a shame otherwise I'd have stepped in to prevent this outcome). But this is a big mistake. Maths aren't part of natural sciences, so next time he behaves as illustrated by JohnBlackburne on Pythagorean theorem, and people go to AE for it, he'll try to wikilawyer his way out of it claiming the ban applied to natural sciences, not maths.

Additionally, the problem of his violation has been unaddressed as well, and as Blackburne detailed, a 1RR restriction won't do a thing as Brews' problem isn't revert wars but rather that "... few of his edits are reverts. At Pythagorean theorem he has more often reworded, moved content around and located irrelevant sources for material to work around consensus. A revert restriction would not effect this (he would just do it more often), and would have no impact on his behaviour on talk pages and other non-article pages."

So see you at AE again withing a month. If even that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The agreed-to restriction is 1RR *per week.* At Pythagorean theorem he put his material back in after others removed it. The 1RR/week would have prevented that. My assumption is that math falls under the natural sciences. (Math is not part of the social sciences or the humanities). The admins at AE are running out of Arbcom-authorized solutions because a general probation expired on 20 October, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Remedies, and we can't do much besides block any more. (We can't add restrictions on our own initiative). If you are right and this problem springs up one more time, the community is not without options of its own. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Told you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi EdJohnston.

I noticed your block of Magoteers for his part in edit-warring and while since you already have some familiarity with the issue, I urge you to please give your opinion on the Vank article, where a serious revert war took place between Magoteers and User:Anastasia.Bukh. Despite my best efforts to create an article that was presented as neutrally as possible, Anastasia displayed a rather shocking attitude to systematically revert every change which I made without so much as offering anything as a compromise. He removed reliable sources, removed the ethnic identity of a prince, removed any notion of the fact that the land is under the de facto control of another political entity, and continues to omit any other piece of information which he disagrees with. Although I have showered the articles with enough sources, he continues to ask for "third party sources" where none are needed. His comments on the talk page are incivil enough and that is why I think Magoteers expressed amazement that only he was blocked for his involvement in the revert war. I made several more changes to the article today and Anastasia just reverted me again. It's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I have already asked for help from other administrators who haven't even shown a fleeting concern to intervene.

I would appreciate your presence. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, don't expect any relief from EdJohnston. He routinely sides with the attackers and deletionists. He'll throw the good editors off an article and leave the bad editors.-B724 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Hello EdJohnston, here are my 2 cents [9] Tuscumbia (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar and your message about the Admin's noticeboard

Hi Ed, thank you for the message. I've already given my answer. I know that this issue is a bit discouraging (long discussions, etc) buy it would be good if you could take a look at my (probably too long) answer and at the article and see if you can provide some input. Thanks. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your interest. I am ready to strike through (or delete) anything that admins consider a personal attack. But please, read my comment[10] in the noticeboard before you decide whether my comments were offensive or just descriptive (I know this may not sound too plausible, but you should take a look at the discussion and Justin's -yeah, implausible- activity before you decide). Thanks again and sorry for robbing your time with this ugly dispute. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, your comments meet the definition of a personal attack. I am reluctant to step into that messy thread at WP:ANI#Gibraltar and make recommendations unless there is at least one person I could talk to who is truly attempting to follow all the policies. Though Justin may well be in the wrong, your incivility is clouding the issue and making the question of sanctions more murky.

You also made three reverts on 12 November, without first getting consensus for them on the talk page. This is hardly helping to calm down the article. You should agree to stop doing this:

1. 12:36, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Correcting wrong info (only 24,000 inhabitants are Gibraltarians) and including reference to the GoG Abstract of Statistics 2009")
2. 16:48, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Corrected mistake, please check")
3. 16:50, 12 November 2010 (edit summary: "Corrected inaccurate information, with less detail. Please check the source: not all 29,000 inhabitants are Gibraltarians (only 80% of them are).")

-- EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Decision regarding Headbomb's action against Brews ohare

EdJohnston: I understand from your recent post on my Talk page that this matter is now settled. However, according to Headbomb's post, he does not think so.

A point to to be made clear:

The natural sciences do not include mathematics. The distinction made by the very authoritative James Newman, for example, is that the "natural sciences" are empirical in nature, while mathematics differs decisively. Brews ohare (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, any such action to draw me back to WP:AE again for a baseless topic ban violation by Headbomb, Blackburne or DickLyon violates the condition that this type of harassment is hereby settled. I assume that should this happen again, this time you or the pertinent administrator will actually dismiss the baseless action instead of allowing the matter to become a thread for innuendo and caricature of my editing behavior on WP by those not enamored of me. In addition, I would hope for chastisement of anyone bringing baseless actions and some meaningful approach taken to prevent its repetition. Brews ohare (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Observations on the conduct of Headbomb's case

The action brought by Headbomb to WP:AE was found by a substantial majority of those commenting to be unfounded, including yourself. This action by Headbomb, having no basis in fact, should have been dismissed summarily by a correct application of procedures. Nonetheless, action was pursued by administrators, including yourself.

Complaints were raised by Blackburne and Dicklyon concerning some Talk page activity on the page Talk:Pythagorean theorem. This discussion was already over, terminated on their terms, and no Administrative intervention was necessary in what was already a dead issue. The invention of some ongoing edit war on Pythagoras' theorem was made up of whole cloth by administrators (not by Blackburne, not by DickLyon, not by Headbomb).

Administrators intervened to muckrake that it is my "whole approach to Wikipedia that is ‘the problem’". They then blatantly hijacked Headbomb's dubious claim of violation of a topic ban to manufacture their own brand-new witch hunt, with no new disruption to occasion this attention, but merely a tumor grown of prejudices from long ago, and long ago dealt with, but not forgotten, and with no relation to a topic ban violation.

We've seen here a spectacle of administrators tripping over their own robes, losing their spectacles, unable to focus, a ludicrous charade mocking all dignity, and with no semblance of gravity and process. It is, EdJohnston, a farce you should not allow yourself to be drawn into if you are to hold your head high. Brews ohare (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the decision was baseless. It is unfortunate that both you and Headbomb were away during the exact moment when we might have clarified the final wording of the voluntary agreement. I am still concerned about your approach to editing Wikipedia, and if you proceed as though you can do anything you want on mathematics articles, I think we may be back at AE soon. I hope you will act as though you accept the 1RR/week limitation there as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare and revert intepretation

As even a perfunctory view of my actions on WP will show, and as supported by direct statement from Dick Lyon and from Blackburne themselves, my editing of main pages isn't an issue, and reversions aren't a problem with my behavior. The whole matter of interpretation of my voluntary restriction is therefore moot.

The problems as seen by Blackburne and by Dick Lyon are referred to by them as "bloat", that is, I am of the view that examples and detail add to an article, and they prefer very succinct articles. The concept of "bloat" is not a WP guideline, but a very personal interpretation. In cases where Blackburne and DickLyon make an appearance to delete an addition of mine and support their actions on the Talk page, I naturally attempt to explain why my addition is useful. They have never agreed with me, and express their pique by claiming I am preoccupying the Talk page unnecessarily. That approach relieves them of any responsibility to explain why their concept of "bloat" should take precedence over mine. So far, I have had to let things drop as I am outnumbered. These encounters are not a matter requiring discipline, although that is their approach. Rather, what is needed is a better guideline regarding WP:IsNot.

As for Headbomb and Beeblebrox, I have had very little encounter with them except on WP:AE and WP:ANI because they are not actually involved with me in my editing but are involved in a vendetta to eliminate my activities. Such a campaign should involve a bit of balance, looking at my wide range of constructive contributions to WP, but these two simply are smarting over having their pants pulled down over stupidities like Headbomb's last action. Brews ohare (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Given your approach to this, I am not sure that trying to negotiate with you was worthwhile. I see that Tim Song has now addressed the matter to Arbcom: WP:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Speed of light. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston: I am sorry that you have taken the view that my presentation above warrants no consideration, and that you simply adopt a hard line based upon a vague statement about "my approach", which I understand to mean that I have attempted to engage instead of buckling under without comment. Brews ohare (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you are disagreeing with Blackburne, DickLyon and Headbomb as well as myself that a revert rule addresses nothing. Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you've rejected my understanding of the scope of the 1RR/week rule (the key point about it including mathematics) there is little more for us to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RE

Re I didnt response becouse Lviskie reverted again, and I wasnt able to revert my edition. I forgot about 1r per day restriction. Sorry.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit war report

I have looked at the page again and there is no change since I last posted. Are you suggesting a decision has been made already? What is being done about JHunter's behaviour and actions? What review has been done to the actual state of the article in dispute to determine where it stands? And no, I have not attacked anyone. Please don't take what I said out of context. I would work with JHunter if I could. Are you asking me to remove the comment?  æronphonehome  20:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)