User talk:EdJohnston

Thank you!

What country do you live in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.139.146 (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It was really nice and helpful of you. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Harassment and censorship

You warned me this way

Please be aware that nationalist edit-warring about famous people who seem to have both Croatian and Italian connections is not new on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee has handled similar cases in the past. If you continue your program of 'Italianization' you will most likely be warned under WP:ARBMAC, which covers nationalist editing on topics related to the Balkans. This could lead to a permanent ban from your making any edits in this topic area. If you hope to be here long term, please listen to feedback and work with others. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

then you blocked me for, as you say, 'you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring.'

• There is no my program of 'Italianization'. Giulio Clovio was an Italian painter and his place of birth was dutifully mentioned. That's a scholar attitude valid across the academic community worldwide. Here the 'Italian' attribute is used purely academically: Clovio belonged to the Italian medieval civilization and culture.

• I was not involved in any edit warring. My reverts, questions and clarifications were support to prof David's academic approach to this biography. Also, edit warring if existing has at least two sides. Selecting one arbitrarily, as you did, is a harassment.

• Giulio Clovio was not "Julije Klovic" no matter which "references" might be used. To understand this, you have to have proper knowledge and academic background. Entering such nonsense only harms Wikipedia's credibility. Good insight into the "name" problem is given by me on the article talk page.

• The other participants in this discussion used words "professor", idiot, then baseless disqualifications of my and prof. David's academic credentials. How come that such people are not warned and blocked for that behavior? How come that you do not see it or you do not want to see it?

• Why you are not paying attention to the fact that AnnekeBart and Philosopher12 are falsely referencing books in order to support false claims?

• As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, 'Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.'. So, please, do that here.

--Luciano di Martino (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You reverted the article on Giulio Clovio three times. The case was reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive157#User:Luciano di Martino reported by User:AnnekeBart (Result: 72h, ARBMAC). In arriving at a decision to block your account, I was most influenced by your removal of the following reference from the article:

• John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans: a study of identity in pre-nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the medieval and early-modern periods, University of Michigan Press, 2006, p 195 Google Books.

This is a modern scholarly reference (2006) which is surely going to be helpful to editors working on the article, in deciding what role the different nationalities played in the makeup of this artist. Can you explain how it makes the article *better* for you to remove a reference that seems to support the side you are arguing against? Do you think this is a good-faith action on your part? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that you either did not read what you are referring to or you do not understand what you've read. What prof. Fine says is quite clear:

Thus, we cannot read into the labels of clear ethnic messsage. ... Whether Coatia was just an identifying mark, separatnig him from many other Juliuses in Italy, or whether he took his place of origin as a serious or ethnic-type identity, of course, cannot be determined from signature alone.

which denies what you are trying to prove. Clearly the opposite side is not supported by prof. Fine. As I said above, it was dutifully mentioned that Clovio's place of birth is in today's Croatia. But when talking about Italian medieval culture and civilization, Clovio was always mentioned as and Italian painter in the sense that he belonged to that culture and civilization. Moreover, there is no Julije Klovic, there is only Giulio Clovio. If you do Google advanced search, then you'll learn that it gives:

• Giulio Clovio Advanced search About 18,100 results (0.13 seconds)
• Julije Klovic Advanced search About 551 results (0.19 seconds) ---> these results are coming from sources prof. Fine disqualified as serious in his book.

As you see, I can use prof. Fine's point of view against you and your friends and add his book as proper reference against not-so-serious scholar attitudes of Croatian historians named in his book on page 195. Then the next question for you is: why you are not sanctioning uncivil language, personal attacks, and arbitrary disqualifications used against me and prof David?!--Luciano di Martino (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As an admin, I am not going to give my own opinion as to how the nationality of Giulio Clovio should be described. That is for the editors at Talk:Giulio Clovio to decide. You will see at User talk:AnnekeBart#Personal attacks that I advised her to be careful with her language. You did not reply to my question as to whether your removal of the reference was in good faith. That is, do you sincerely think it makes the article better to exclude the John Fine reference? EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm trying to tell you that you have to read the reference before passing any judgement about its content. You are blindly refusing to admit that you were wrong. Prof. Fine's work is against the line followed by your friends and which 'contributions' you are pointlessly guarding ('contributions'= claiming nonsense then calling upon a book that exposes and rejects the same nonsense). My removal of that reference was professional and academic, therefore in the best faith. However, the same reference shall be used the way outlined by Prof. Fine in the two sentences quoted by me and underlined above, i.e. refusing guessing ethnicity of a man based on his nickname or his signature as un-scholastic. Again, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.. Which way you approached this issue civilly and why you are refusing to justify your action?--Luciano di Martino (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a reply

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

Communist terrorism

Is already under 1RR -- and, absent vandal edits from IPS, I do not see any actual reason for semi-protection there. One editor who has complained has also weighed in on SPI accusations which were not well-founded, and I would suggest the rationale that he thinks all IPs who disagree with his POV are socks is insufficient. Cheers. BTW, you might also look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Lia_Looveer to see the nature of the colloquy involved. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP is probably a sockpuppet of blocked User:Marknutley/User:Tentontunic.

Your record at SPI is a teensy bit poor, alas. Collect (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Both editors used dynamic IPs from England to edit-war and exceed 1RR over the POV tag on this article. TFD (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of where the IP came from, he broke the 1RR restriction. He also reverted the neutrality tag while making no appearance on the article's talk page. If anyone believes this is Tentontunic, they are welcome to open an SPI. Hopefully the semiprotection takes away most of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually a block on the IP is sufficient. The accusations cover a substantial number of UK ISPs <g>, which made the accusation that they are all one person quite unlikely. In fact, an IP in Portugal was accused, and now one in Hong Kong. A50000 was also accused - so far the accused IPs have not been MarkNutley AFAICT. So we have an article semi-protected due to a handful of edits TFD dislikes (sigh). Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See the archives for WP:OP. mark nutley btw admitted using IPs. TFD (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Managing never to use one you IDed with any evidence at all? Like from Hong Kong, Portugal and three different British ISPs? I rather think that the "boy who cried 'sock' at SPI" is a new fable for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue for this thread is whether semiprotection is a good idea. Since the focus has moved elsewhere, so should this discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you help please?

Hi Ed, you have dealt with user:Ohiostandard on my behalf already, but the user still continues to hound my contributions and assume a bad faith. You remember that when you asked the user to reconsider its unwarranted language about me, the user responded to you with rather long [...], in which it named an article that I wrote more than a year ago as being under-sourced. The user found this article while hounding over my contributions, and I am 100% sure of it. Then user:Roscelese saw the mention of this article at user:Ohiostandard's talk page, and nominated it on deletion. Both users took a great effort to delete the article. If you are to look at the history of AfD you will see that user:Ohiostandard made 30 edits on it, more than any other editor did, but that comment is way too much. In that comment user:Ohiostandard is quoting the comment made by user:Roscelese at my DYK nomination: "Oh look, one of Mbz1's buddies pops up again to approve a severely flawed article. Fancy that." and than adds from itself: "Also, it seems relevant to observe, since the fact hasn't been mentioned previously: As was also the case when Hodja Nasreddin showed up and supported her previously, Mbz1 is the creator of this article".

Ed,user:Hodja Nasreddin is not my buddy, actually quite the opposite. May I please ask you to take a look at only two most recent communications of me with user:Hodja Nasreddin #1 and #2. Do they look like communications of buddies to you? But even, if user:Hodja Nasreddin were my "buddy", does it mean that they should not vote on AfD only because I am the author of the article? Ed, to me the conduct of user:Ohiostandard as I described it here, and in our email exchange that includes hounding and making a false accusations is the worst type of harassment. From my own sad experience I know that if I am not dealing with the false accusations on the spot eventually they are used to make me unfairly sanctioned. May I please ask you to impose an absolutely equally applied interaction ban between user:Ohiostandard and me, or if you would not do it, could you please tell me how to deal with such users? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have been clashing with Ohiostandard and Roscelese due to matters which originated at DYK. We expect that editors who often participate at DYK will be skilled at working with others to find consensus. Please employ your diplomatic skills to settle the current matters. Your message does not mention anyone violating any Arbcom restrictions. You must be aware that the possibility of tag-team approvals at DYK has been floated, though I don't know how valid the complaint was. With a good approach, you could work these things out without constantly resorting to admins. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What tag-team approvals of DYK are you talking about? I was not even talking about a bad faith decline of my absolutely valid DYK by Roscelese. I was talking about a bad faith comment by Ohiostandard at AfD concerning an article I started.I was talking about this comment. Where is DYK tag-teaming approval here?

Who said that interaction bans should be used only if somebody violating Arbcom restrictions? Have I said somebody violated Arbcom restriction? I was talking about persisting hounding + false accusations = harassment by Ohiostandard, and asked for your help.

Any differences of me "constantly resorting to admins" please? (highlighted by me)

Your comment is more than unhelpful. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past I helped you because your topic ban kept you from taking certain steps that are open to regular editors. It is hard for me to see any difficulties here, in your new request, that are not the kind of thing you could negotiate yourself. I did see a complaint that Broccolo was approving a lot of your DYKs at WT:DYK#Articles in contentious topic areas: "we have a COI problem with users who belong to a particular political faction attempting to verify articles submitted by their ideological buddies." A situation like that is eminently within your control, and you shouldn't need any help from me to arrive at a solution. The comments by Ohiostandard and Roscelese that you included above seem to be a follow-on to that dispute, which I'm not closely following. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I hope that you'd agree that it is not a good practice to talk about something that from your own words you are "not closely following". It is anyway as talking about something that you know nothing about.

Ed, what Broccolo has to do with user:Hodja Nasreddin? In case you did not notice they are two different editors. Do you believe that anybody who approves my DYK could be called my buddy? Really?

When was the last time Broccolo approved my DYK?

How many times user:Hodja Nasreddin approved my DYK?

What this article Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler story has to do with "contentious topic areas",and what " particular political faction" it belongs to?

What this article Reuel Abraham has to do with "contentious topic areas",and what " particular political faction" it belongs to?

If I am being harassed am I allowed to ask for the help by an admin only at the matter that is covered by my unfair topic ban? What steps should I be taking? In the past I tried to talk to both users, but in response I got only more trolling well, should not use the right word, but not sure what word to use instead.

What the disgusting AfD comment made by Ohiostandard has to do with tag-teaming of DYK?

Ohiostandard behavior around this AfD, Ed, notice, not DYK, AfD, has been disgusting all over, and now after AfD was closed the user goes on at the closing admin talk page.

Once again your comment is unhelpful. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban from Iranian articles

I did not have time to visit Wikipedia in the past week, but I have to say that in my absence and inability to comment, this hasty conclusion is the most biased, unfair, imbalanced and WP:POV judgment I have ever encountered from AE. Restricting users based on their opinion, using WP:HARASSMENT, evidence obtained by hacking email accounts in violation of WP:PRIVACY, accepting forged and frivolous claims from hack sites targeting users for their editing opinion is something not quite worthy of encyclopedia or administrating behavior. It is a rather tacit approval for exercising the same violations against users in future to target and push them away from editing articles. Atabəy (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the rationale for the closure of the AE request which was given here. I'm afraid that neither you nor Khodabandeh14 explained yourselves very well. I did invite you to propose how to reach agreement on the article. I hoped you would then:

• offer to open an RfC or advertise the questions for wider input.
• promise not to make any more reverts at Safavid dynasty until a consensus was found.

I was disappointed in your answer. (The whole discussion is archived at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 21#AE case against Atabəy). It was frustrating that both of you spoke at such length but your arguments made so little sense. But you were the one with all the past blocks and sanctions as logged in the ARBAA cases. You keep complaining about people hacking into email, but that did not play any role in how the case was decided. I recommend that you stop using that as an argument. (Arbcom did not make any official response to the data given to them, and they said nothing to me).

Any hint of your being sincerely open to dialog with others at Safavid dynasty could change the situation, and could make it possible to lift the ban. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I was simply away from Wikipedia for nearly 10 days, on personal business reasons. While I understand the need to close AE report, I don't think the lack of answer from myself due to being away justified a ban decision taken based on Khodabandeh's allegations. I believe the Safavid dynasty article in its current version reflects the language transliterations that I was seeking (with exception of Kurdish and Georgian irrelevant spellings). So why did have to cost my ban to get that? I believe there is a ground to move on with other editing discussions on talk page, if I am given an opportunity. As far as using evidence from hacked sites, well the fact that alleging user (Khodabandeh14) was not restricted for rather grave and repeated violations of WP:HARASSMENT, while the user he accused of "battleground mentality and nationalism" based on that forged evidence was restricted, tacitly implies the support for those allegations. And as already indicated, all my edits referenced by Khodabandeh in his frivolous AE report were from the period preceding ArbCom case that drew judgments and applied restrictions on those. Why ban me now for those again? Atabəy (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid this looks to me like more of the same rhetoric that was so unpersuasive the first time. Even in your last answer, you continue the attacks on Khodabandeh. The phrase 'forged evidence' is not helping your case. If you don't want to sound like a nationalist edit warrior, you could be speaking differently. I'm sorry not to be more helpful. You can appeal your ban at WP:AE using the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. If unsatisfied with the response there, you can appeal to Arbcom. If you want to begin a real conversation, I'd consider lifting the ban myself, but I don't perceive you as being interested in a real conversation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I indicated clearly above that I am willing to discuss the issue on the talk page, and the fact that the requested transliteration now remains in the page, means there is a progress. I have not personally attacked Khodabandeh14, I was only subjected to one based on clear violations of privacy and harassment rules in AE, none of which seemed to be enforced. But if a decision is made to lift my restriction without AE appeal, I am willing to forget and to continue working towards consensus as I did for years on Safavid dynasty, a lot of material in which is a result of my contributions. If you could be a bit more clear about what is meant by "real conversation", that would help too. Atabəy (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my two suggestions above:

• offer to open an RfC or advertise the questions for wider input.
• promise not to make any more reverts at Safavid dynasty until a consensus was found.

To those suggestions I would now add:

• Stop speaking about 'hacked email' or 'forged evidence' unless you wish to communicate directly to Arbcom by email about that. In that case your ban would remain in effect unless Arbcom sees differently.

Let me know if you would agree to those three things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As far as the evidence in violation of Wikipedia rules, I did relay my concerns about that to the ArbCom via email 10 days ago. Will follow up. Regarding reverts on Safavid dynasty. Say, hypothetically, if I inserted a POV tag and substantiated it with a comment opening a discussion thread, while another anonymous IP shows up reverting and removing the tag without any discussion, what's the procedure for preventing that other than reverts? Atabəy (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting to hear your answer on point #3. You need to agree to stop using the phrases 'hacked email' or 'forged evidence' on any page of Wikipedia. This is a condition of my lifting your ban from Safavid dynasty. If you don't agree to this condition, you can try the other appeal steps. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, however, on a condition that my agreement shall not imply in any way my acceptance of the evidence provided in AE report alleging links to me as editor to be true. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That takes care of #3. Next, can you offer some ideas for what form of discussion could be used to reach consensus at Safavid dynasty? Do you know of any experts within Wikipedia, or any WikiProjects that might be consulted? It should not be hard to get some ideas. That page has 12 archive files, and it has some project banners on it. You might also look in the edit history to find the names of some people who have added new content to the article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please, update the Arbcom page entry? I think the opinion of users from WP:WikiProject_Azerbaijan, some of which were involved in Safavid dynasty editing in past, would be relevant for reaching consensus. The main disagreement on that page is primarily due to attempts to associate Safavids with solely Iranian heritage, while the dynasty was really diverse, both ethnically and linguistically to be attached a particular national title. As I indicated in one of my past comments, calling Safavids as Iranian is like renaming Roman Empire to be called Roman Italian Empire. Atabəy (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like a specific commitment from you to wait for consensus. (See #1 and #2 above). I would like you to take some concrete action, like open a WP:Request for comment, and make an agreement not to revert until consensus is reached. If you only plan to ask Azeri editors, you are unlikely to collect a balanced set of opinions. I made a proposal for how you could contact knowledgeable editors, and you have not responded to that. The dispute seems to be about the extent of Azeri influence in Iraq Iran in a certain historical period. If you can propose the wording of the question to be settled by the Request for comment, that would already be progress. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's actually Azeri influence in Iran not Iraq, or to be more precise, the Azerbaijani background of Safavid dynasty. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, the dynasty's founder first proclaimed himself as Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501. So calling the dynasty now solely Safavid Iranian dynasty isn't quite historically correct.

Currently, the Safavid talk page is overwhelmed by the opinion of one side. So my intention to ask Azeri editors only sought to introduce some form of balance. The page was far more peaceful and balanced before, when everybody was involved. As far as reverting, I feel like I am being blamed for all reverts occurring on Safavid dynasty, but if you pay attention to history of the page, my reverts were only a small fraction of revert conflicts by anonymous IP and other editors. I have no interest in reverting without consensus, in general. My only concern are the anonymous IPs which disrupt the page while discussions go on. I will consider opening an RFC, I just have to formulate the report which takes time. Atabəy (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I will wait and see if you have time to format an RfC and if you will make the other assurances I requested above. I need you to agree to #1 and #2 pretty much verbatim, and you may not be willing to do that. Until then the ban remains in place. Safavid dynasty is currently semiprotected so there should be no problem from IP edits. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the lifting of the ban as the comments above show. The user simply wants to remove a term that gets 200+ scholarly google book hits: [1] (Safavid dynasty of Iran). That is unacceptable per wikipedia policy and falls under wikipedia: "I don't like it". RFC is also not the way to go as the issue needs mediation after Atabey stops the nationalistic mode of talking and editing. The mediatiors in the end will also say 200+ WP:RS sources are fine. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One more point for EdJohnston.. Also I would like to note a new nationalist comment on Atabey's own personal webpage [2]. He changes: " This user supports the cultural and linguistic rights of people in South Azerbaijan and respects the unity and integrity of Iran. " to "This user supports the cultural, linguistic, political freedoms of people in South Azerbaijan. ". So in short, he is clearly stating that he supports dissolution of Iran. Even the term "South Azerbaijan" are used by people that want to separate part of Iran. Now do you think such a user can be objective when it comes to Safavids and their usage of the name Iran? I don't think wikipedia should be used as a political platform for writing nationalistic statements. Rather it should be a place to write an objective encyclopaedia and thats it only. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I will open an RfC on Safavid dynasty, I am currently preparing report for that. I apologize for the delay, I am just tied up with many other things in past two weeks. As far as Khodabandeh's comments, what I post in my personal space is my own view, not meant to be a political statement as it never was. I wish him to assume good faith in future. Atabəy (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but wishing for dissolution of another country is a political statement and inline with battleground editing. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I wished for a dissolution of any country in my user page. This accusation seems to be an overwhelming assumption of bad faith. Atabəy (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Atabey violating his patrol

And a second point for EdJohnton Please note this: [3], he added Iranian Azerbaijan to the article, although this is a violation of his patrol, as he is not supposed to edit any Iran related topic. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani American article is not about Iran but about ethnic Azerbaijani community in America. Many Azerbaijani speakers in US, originally from Iranian Azerbaijan, identify themselves as Azerbaijani-Americans. Here is a website of one such organization [4] listed on that page out of many. I don't see how this article is Iran-related, moreover, how my edit there violates any restriction. Very sad that the user feels emboldened now by application of bans on others, it only clarifies his intent. Atabəy (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I encourage Atabəy to avoid further edits that include the word 'Iranian', such as a change he made at Azerbaijani American. Such edits do test the limits of his ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed. I will keep that in mind. By the way, a more relevant geographic name that could be used in that case on Azerbaijani American, in order to avoid using word "Iranian", is South Azerbaijan. But I won't touch that edit and keep it as is for now, to avoid further misunderstandings while we get things sorted out. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You added the word from Iran to the article, so it is Iran related [5] as you are claiming (incorrectly or correctly, it doesn't matter), that some people from Iran fall under the definition. So it is Iran/Iranian related and actually the definition has been a contenious issue (as you have edited contentious sources yourself to the article).. For example if you look at the talkpage and the article which your were involved in, there was a dispute wether Azeri Turkish speakers from Iran are Iranian-Americans or Azerbaijani-American. This is a clearly a violation as you were involved in the editing with regards to the contentious issue. Also your statement is: "Very sad that the user feels emboldened now by application of bans on others, it only clarifies his intent" completely inline with battleground mentality. Your ignoring of Encyclopaedia Britannica first line and the other line is also inline with battle-ground mentality. Picking one line from the body of Britannica, without looking at all the other lines which contradict your viewpoint is a demonstration of battleground type editing. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to show another sample POV

Dear Ed, I know you don't want to be involved in the content dispute part, but this is very important. Please just note this statement by Atabəy in your userpage: "According to Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, the dynasty's founder first proclaimed himself as Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501. So calling the dynasty now solely Safavid Iranian dynasty isn't quite historically correct. " Now please just note the first line of Britannica link that Atabəy provided: "Ṣafavid Dynasty, (1502–1736), Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shīʿite Islām as the state religion of Iran was a major factor in the emergence of a unified national consciousness among the various ethnic and linguistic elements of the country" I'll let you judge for yourself! Please also note the statement in Britannica: "1501 Ismāʿīl was enthroned as shah of Azerbaijan. By May of the next year he was shah of Iran....". In actuality, all the primary sources state that when Tabriz was taken in 1501, he declared himself the title of Padishah-e Iran, and secondary sources support this.

However, I just wanted to note that in the Britannica link Atabəy provided, it states in the first line: "Iranian dynasty whose establishment of Shīʿite Islām ", but he simply ignores his own Britannica link with regards to the introduction. Note his claim that calling the Roman empire as Italian is the same as calling Safavid empire of Iran is obviously not supported by his own Britannica link that he provided. I do not think RFC is good enough, the user should comeback in three months and do a mediation, although I believe he violated his parol as the above shows and this should be extended indefinitely with regards to Iran related articles. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two other references besides Britannica:

• Richard Tapper. "Shahsevan in Safavid Persia", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1974, p. 324.
• Lawrence Davidson, Arthur Goldschmid, "A Concise History of the Middle East", Westview Press, 2006, p. 153.

which recite the fact that Safavid state was proclaimed over Azerbaijan first in 1501. Therefore, since no state called Iran existed immediately prior to 1501 (unless you can prove otherwise) for several centuries, the naming of dynasty as Iranian is rather symbolic and does not reflect the historical identity. The pushing of it in Wikipedia is meant to deny the identity or association of dynasty with Azerbaijan, which is actually disruptive.

But anyways, all of these will go into RfC. Btw, I don't see why contributor would oppose RfC as a way of resolving disputes? Atabəy (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall respond to the technical argument per Ed's request below in the Safavid page (I urge Ed to look at it).. However, I do not oppose RfC (comments from 3rd party users such as user:Folantin, but rather I prefer mediation after your ban is served. As per symbolic usage by Britannica,.. sorry that sounds like I do not like it. The top Safavid scholar is Roger Savory who also states in no unclear tems: "RM Savory, Iran under the Safavids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980), p. 3. Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties?". Read Roger Savory. As per the name of the Safavid state, it was Iran when we are discussing an empire of 250 years and their one year rule of part of the empire (Azerbaijan in Iran), is not really something that goes in the introduction as Britannica has put it in the body as well.. Also there are three references to state that during 1501 when Azerbaijan was taken, Safavid king proclaimed himself as Padishah-e Iran (in the talkpage that I shall put again and it has primary evidence support as well from chronicles of that era). However, all of this aside, I do not see why there should be any leniency in terms of the patrol for the user that just broke the violation and has just violated several battle-field items above. Please note the several discrete attacks on other users which is clear manifestation of battle-field mentality above. Thank you --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Time's up

I don't wish to entertain a continuing dispute between Atabəy and Khodadabandeh14 on my user talk. Atabəy, you are getting very near the edge since you added Iran-related material to an article. Unless you come forward immediately with your proposed text of an RfC for Safavid dynasty, I am prepared to decline your unban request with no further ado. Then you will be free to pursue your other appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ed, "Very sad that the user feels emboldened now by application of bans on others, it only clarifies his intent" is more of the same battle-field mentality as is the violation patrol. I do not see why wikipedia laws shall not apply.. I am on a trip for next week and rather not edit Wikipedia, however, I know exactly what Atabey will likely say and I shall add a complete response to it on the Safavid page for the nth time..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC) BTW, I rather not edit wikipedia next week, so you may note this if I do not respond for a week. However, Atabey just posted on the safavid talkpage, where-as he should have posted it here and you could have posted it for him in the talkpage. The ban patroll in my opinion should continue to stay. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, Now that you showed leniency, I ask you to please you take an active part in the discussion and also have the principle WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:synthesis in the background to warn users incase they violate it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC

Ed, I initiated an RfC [6]. I did not know on which talk page to put it, so I just put it on the talk page of the subject article. If I need to move it elsewhere, please, let me know. I will add my evidence to RfC later on today. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I am sorry for posting on your talk page again, but please, let me know whether I can proceed posting my comments under RFC I opened on Talk:Safavid dynasty or not. Khodabandeh14 raised a point above that I cannot do so, but then how do I provide my comments/references to RfC? Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please continue to participate in the RfC at Talk:Safavid dynasty. I am allowing it in spite of your topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have responded in detail to each point of Atabey in a separate thread [7]. You might wonder why the response is long. Note my long response has to do with the fact that sometimes one needs overwhelming numbers of sources to get some points across that WP:RS sources cannot be ignored. Also most readers in Wikipedia are not expected to know anything about Safavid history. Anyhow, the user has been topic banned from several articles but I will assume good faith. The fact is that with the exception of User:Folantin and User:Kansas Bear, I do not see any long term member who can understand these points. In actuality, readers do not need to understand everything as Wikipedia is about establish RS sources, weight, neutrality, no OR, no syntheis and not really arguing over the contents. Anyhow, I just ask you to keep an eagle eye on the talkpage and behaviour. Also I might take a 1 week break next week (or the check article much less), so my lack of response should not be intrepreted as I have forgotten the article. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an update, I have asked User:Folantin to mediate. If he does mediation, I hope you keep an eye on. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, while I understand the desire to resolve editorial disputes through RfC, a number of concerns appear here. First of all, I agreed to all your points and opened an RFC, I am demonstrating good faith providing only references in support of my opinion without commenting on users, read and listen to everything that the opposite side says, and based on those provided a Proposal section in the RfC. But for some reason, instead of discussing the proposal and observations, the focus in the RFC is for some reason on why I behave certain way or use certain references, accusing me of tendentious editing with words like "he makes an WP:OR that the name Iran was not used by Safavids", "concensus cannot be reached with such an attitude", "I find it completely unacceptable to delete sources such as Roger Savory" when no one actually suggested doing so. Could you please, advise the contributor to at least demonstrate interest in reaching an agreement via RfC?

From my perspective, there is no fundamental disagreement in the proposal that I made so far. The only disagreement is whether "of Iran" or "Iranian" attachments should remain. To justify my point, and listening to the opinion about general Google search, today, I provided Google Books search result, which shows over 5,000 references without word "Iran/Iranian" when referring to Safavid Empire, and only 53 results with inclusion of those. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please continue to show your patience by not coming here every 10 seconds. If Khodabandeh14 reveals a bad attitude to the RfC, that could play a role if admins have to review the situation again. You can win by behaving better. (And by having better content arguments). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ed, overall I agree with the comments made by Folantin in regards to the RfC. They (along with subsequent introduction edits) seem to address most of my major concerns in opening the RfC as well as in lengthy talk page discussions. And I would like thank Folantin for helping to sort this out. In his last point, he said that it would be good to expand on the legacy section, and to discuss the impact of Safavids on regional history. I can add some material on that to Safavid page, if I am permitted to do so. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

quick example for Ed

Dear Ed, I am giving the RfC a chance, but the issue is technical, and I think ardous mediation is the best path. But we can try RfC for now. However, RfC requires someone with knowledge of the period. Rather, I suggested mediation from the beginning and I hope just like the RfC condition you put on Atabey, the same can be put on mediation, if RfC fails. Here is an example of why I believe mediation is necessary. Atabey calls Richard Frye: "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history". He then makes unrelated commentary to Richard Frye's statement which I have responded to here: [8]. Note in order to show his unrelated comment, I am forced to go through the work of Richard Frye and show a contradiction. This could have been avoided had Atabey finished reading the article he is quoting. Now what does Atabey think of this statement: Richard Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", second impression, Phoenix Press, December 2003 "None the less Iran was torn by internal struggles until the sixteenth century, when again, as under the Achaemenids and the Sasanians, Iran rose to imperial greatness -- this time not so much foreign conquest but in the unification of Iran politically, culturally and religiously under the Safavids" (pg 4) (I can provide a scan of this page if necessary but it is readable enoughin google books [9]. Is he willing to accept an author whom he has referenced as "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history", and who directlys contradicts all the major observations Atabey has mentioned? Rather, past experience in the talkpage has shown that unfortunately, such statements are ignored. I consider this to be: Tendentious editing. However if Atabey accepts this statement of the scholar whom he has called; "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history", then I will take back my point and have a more positive view of RfC. On the side note, the google books argument is responded to here: [10] (the top word is "Safavid Iran" and also "Safavid empire" is not contradictory). Thank you, and I am just asking to focus on this small point, is Atabey willing to accept this statement of Richard Frye which I just brought, and whom he has called "one of the most distinguished..". If not, then I am not going to continue with RfC and will seek mediation/arbcomm. If so, then I will change my attitude. Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls

Just to let you know that I posted to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls & User:Westbankfainting before you protected the page.

I am not sure that the page should be protected as I am not sure that the whole "Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls" is really a notable event and am still considering sending it to WP:AfD on the grounds of that. Mtking (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to ANI. I'd be surprised if you can convince people this event is not notable. Check the reference list: Time, CS Monitor, New York Times, etc. But getting the article correct won't be a simple matter. If you are considering AfD, why not wait until the protection expires. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As you suggested, I did post a request at WP:RSN. Thanks for your very constructive help and feedback concerning the article. betsythedevine (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Mibelz

Hi! I would like to inform you that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus leads a personal campaign against me (vide Mibelz AE request). The problem is that he and some other Polish editors prefer rather Polish than English names (for example: Kraków, not Cracow) in English Wikipedia, and often ignore historical facts which are inconvenient for their point of view. As a scientist, I am interested in truth, not propaganda. -- Warm regards, Mibelz, Ph.D. 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have written about some Polish editors because of their "national historic policy" in English Wikipedia (i.e. The Rebellion of vogt Albert, and a reaction to the information on vogt Albert - of German origin - and bishop Jan Muskata - of German-Silesian origin). -- Mibelz, 14:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your answer seems to show you don't understand the problem. See WP:AE#Mibelz#Result concerning Mibelz where I have proposed a revised sanction. Any hint that you understand the gravity of the situation might be enough to avoid the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Article

Ed, as a result of my AE request I was allowed to write the article in my user space. The conditions stated by 2/0 include that the article should be reviewed by at least two administrators. I've chosen you to be one of them because you were the one who declined my request and because you were not helpful in my prior request for help., which means that you are going to be especially strict to my article and me :-) The article is here. May I please ask you to review it, when you have a time, and state your verdict either on the article's talk page or on my talk page? Thank you for your time. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJohnston. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 03:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Busy

Hello, I am busy in real life, if there is anything you are wondering over give me opportunity (time) to reply in full. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted...but

I have noted your message on my talk page. However, can you please also acknowledge Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted where certain editors are required not to interact with me. This does not excuse certain editors running to that AE thread in a most bombastic and incivil way making accusations against myself. Can you please also remind those editors of their restrictions as well, because they too have been banned for breaching it in the past. What's good for the goose. Thanks. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrator abuse? At the very least a bit of concern.

On the article Palamism I noted that for some Eastern Orthodox sources that the term is pure West Christian POV. Some EO see it as a fabricated form of attack on Eastern Orthodox theology. Administrator Dbachmann removed that comment [11] Even though I fear retalition I must state that I find this very troubling, that what makes it into articles is what administrators throw their weight behind rather than what representatives of respective positions under a topic actually say on behalf of their community.

Also I do not feel comfortable criticizing administrators here on Wikipedia as there is no way or process or forum in this online project to do that. This is all very time consuming and the administrators edit appear to be to silence certain Eastern Orthodox concerns for what appear to be that administrator's personal reasons which is a very taboo thing to do. Or at least from an ethical perspective one would expect it to be. But again anyone pointing out abuse or their "concerns" is subject to retaliation here on Wikipedia.[12] As it is also that some editors here on Wiki provoke retaliation, as they are protected from policy by administrators. This is the old Nomenklatura.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Dbachmann was acting in the role of an ordinary editor at Palamism, not an admin. If you dislike his change, you are welcome to discuss it with him in the usual way. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Dbachmann's edit appears to be acting as an "ordinary editor" and not as an admin. I happen to disagree with his edit so I have reverted it and explained why on the Talk Page. If Dbachmann feels this is an important issue, he can respond on the Talk Page as is appropriate. More collegiality and less suspicion are called for here. Please raise issues on the article Talk Page first before complaining about admin abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo-Richard (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Because my edit restrictions are still unclear and I can not comment on articles that are Roman Catholic theology based (i.e. Palamism is Roman Catholic as no Greek or Eastern Theologians from the East use such a term in their works, only Western EO converts or Roman Catholic theologians do). I think it safe to comment on the involved editors talkpage to ensure that I am in the clear. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, if you want to revise the Palamism article why don't you state here the type of change you want to make. Then others can see if they have any concerns. If you are thinking of using particular references, tell us what they are. For what you write here, ignore the restriction for a moment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Shortening sections

Hi, I just wanted to bring out many sources as possible. One optinion for me is to collapse/expand sections, but I am not sure what the tags for that were.. YOu used it once, It may help a lot in this case. Thank you.. The problem with RfC is that unless users are aware of all these sources, they make think the argument of Atabey is actually based on the source he is citing. It is really not, you can see this in my latest post on google books or Richard Frye. So if you can show me how I can make expand/collapse sections, it will help greatly. Else, I can move it to talkpage and then point the users to this point, that point and etc...Or another option is to create a separate space in the talkpage with your permission. I do not think there is anyway around quoting about 50 sources or so? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The current page at Talk:Safavid dynasty is already up to 280 Kbytes, which is enormous. I really think you should create subpages in your user space, and link to them if needed. Using collapse boxes does not reduce the size of a page in bytes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OKay I will move a large part to my subpage...With your permission is it possible to create a subpage in the talkpage of the article itself? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'll move it to archive 12... --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good solution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I cut the data in half. I know it is still a lot, but for each point, I brought lots of sources and then made my comments. Also if you have time, just please read : [13] (quick example for Ed). Out of the thousands of kilo-byte, I wanted to highligh this pararaph and why even though I support RfC, I am sort of pessimistic by the outcome (although I hope I am wrong). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I am taking a one week vacation that I had planned for. I rather not worry about wikipedia either. So I have asked Atabey to put a proposal for the introduction incorporating the high quality WP:RS sources I have mentioned. I just wanted to ask you to keep an eye on the page. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad this is progressing towards consensus, thanks to Folantin. Just as a note, I have a chance to check Wiki only few times a day, so if you have something urgent needing my attention, feel free to post on my talk page. I will most likely start developing the subpage under my userspace with some suggestions for legacy part as well. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the issue was about concensus as rather getting a third expert opinion as Ed outlined. The third opinion is posted on the talkpage. I also agree that the legacy section (which I had no comments upon) can be expanded for sure. Thanks again to Folantin for resolving the issues. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the introduction is more or less acceptable with exception of lack of Azeri Latin spelling, I think we can move on to discussing and improving other parts. What I am waiting to hear from EdJohnston, is whether I am allowed now to contribute to the article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there is a legacy section in the article, you can propose your statements in the talkpage, if Folantin accepts, then someone will insert it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Mormography

Hi Ed, for your information I've just extended the three day block you imposed on Mormography (talk · contribs) to indefinite duration as they've continued to attack you and other editors on their talk page and seem to be unable to understand the relevant behavioural guidelines. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That was an unexpected outcome of what looked like a normal 3RR case at first. No objection to unblock if he shows he will follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Thanks for that. I do have an opinion... Peridon (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Undid my edit per your request, but I still have questions

Hi Ed, I'm not sure I count as an experienced wikipedia editor yet, but I'm begining to feel like I'm getting there :)

You suggested I undo an edit I had made to an 'arbitration archive' page. Presume you mean this  ? - sorry for the clunky formatting I've never tried linking to a 'diff' before. As you can see I have followed your suggestion (I think? I hope this is what you meant - I don't think I've been to any other arbitration page before).

The reason I wrote the comment (now removed) is that I arrived on that arbitration page by trying to find more editting guidlines for how to edit things relating to the troubles. I was on the page Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_II's_visit_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland and saw the template {{Troubles restriction}} which contains this text

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

OK so now in hindsight it appears that the template probably needs a different target to the one in that link. I looked at the page I editted though - and though it's obviously pretty much all about some chap a few years ago and whether he's allowed to edit things or not - I assumed that was all related to 'the troubles active arbitration' but had not yet been archived away from that page.

I saw the line that says this 'Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. ' and also this 'Comments are very welcome on the Talk page' and I made my edit on the Talk page - not on the main article.

I've still got 3 questions

1. Why does that arbitration page not have a line saying 'this is now a completed arbitration - and this an archive'?
2. Why does the {{Troubles restriction}} template redirect there?
3. Why on the page Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_II's_visit_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland can I not see my edits unless I am logged in?

Hope you can help EdwardLane (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the template has 'active arbitration remedies' linked to this page too EdwardLane (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are my answers to your numbered points:

1. The case message 'Comments are very welcome on the talk page' makes no sense after the case is closed. Maybe the Arbcom clerks should create new template to address that situation.
2. The arb pages are not very user-friendly, but that is the usual way that remedies are linked. I am hoping to get consensus to reorganize the Troubles log of blocks and bans, and if I do so, there could be a better summary at the top.
3. Regarding your edits at the royal visit talk page, I'm unclear on what you were seeing. In general, since you have an account, you should log in to leave comments.

For general information about Arbcom, see WP:ARBCOM and WP:Guide to arbitration. Questions about what remedies are currently in effect could be addressed to WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I've not got back to you earlier I got distracted. Anyway thanks for the feedback - unfortunately I've failed (so far) to find my way around the WP:Administrators' noticeboard but thanks very much for pointing me at it (I didn't even know it existed). So my comments above are still in limbo :( I'll go have another look EdwardLane (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling your attention...

...to this. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mind

Do you mind telling me why there is no longer use in a reviewer permission Pass a Method talk 14:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See the explanation at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. While the permission could still be given out, it would have no effect, since WP:Pending changes permission has been removed from all articles. If the latter comes back, then Reviewer permission will be given out again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know

The only person that, from time to time, returns to disrupt [14] and to try to introduce the same POV. Notice how he's the only one always edit warring over this in years! All of the other editors never opposed or challenged the current stable version for months, because oh well, there's nothing controversial there. Only in his mind.

I just leave this message so you know. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the recent IP edit looks to be a sock of Corticopia. Since the North America article has had a lot of IP vandalism lately, and since other admins have protected since my last action, I've put back the long-term semiprotection. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ed for your patience and commitment as an administrator. As you already know, I'm very familiar with Corticopia's edit pattern and user behaviour. I recently noticed one of his sockpuppets returned to edit after a loooong break:

• Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

As usual, consistent edit pattern in Canada, Quebec, Dominion, Cyprus, Georgia (country), Turkey, Europe (trying to impose the POV that Europe ends in the Carpatus), North America (trying to exclude Mexico from it), Central America, Latin America, Eurasia, Continent (excluding other continental models, prefer name Australia over Oceania), Americas, and geeky Battlestar Galatica-related topics.

I also have the feeling that other two socks that a former checkuser ruled "had nothing to do with Corticopia" (only because their IP were different... hello proxy server or VPN), will show up in North America-related articles since you imposed a semi-protection there. I think he's trying to auto-validate himself as being a different person [15]. I have always been pretty sure they are the same person but, oh well... time will prove me right. I do believe in WP:DUCK. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with you that Chipmunkdavis is Corticopia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Safavid RfC and important development

Please see this: [16] As far as me, I will be happy to implement all the points mentioned by this user (the only active user in the article not from the region). If this RfC is not accepted by the other side, then in my opinion, you should not have allowed the participants to participate as there is really no other expert on the issue in Wikipedia except User:Folantin who is not from the region. I hope user Atabey agrees to implement all the points as well. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

About your behavior

Incident reported. See here--Luciano di Martino (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DSK EW

Hi, I have posted a final response over at the AN3, I'm glad that's all cleared up, I found the attitude and persistence of some people most unpleasant. Anyway, I have a related question:

• Does my agreement to not edit DSK related articles for a week stop me from voicing my opinion on the deletion discussion of the sex assault case article? I prefer to ask, as I do not want to renege on my word. Thanks, reply here, I'll watch. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to give your opinion in the AfD. Not a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou violating editing restriction

Esoglou is editing once more on Orthodox theology [17]. Esoglou again has completely misrepresented the Eastern Orthodox position. It is this type of behavior that is causing the conflict between Esoglou and various editors on wikipedia.[18] The source clearly states that the term Palamism which is the name of the article is rejected by at least one Eastern Orthodox theologian as a made up thing by detractors of Eastern Orthodox theology. Esoglou has posted incoherent nonsense that obfuscates the very direct and simple point of the theologian. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pseudo-Richard's edit here. Ancient Faith Radio appears to be produced by people espousing the Orthodox point of view, though they are not theologians. Per his editing restriction, Esoglou should not edit what Orthodox people are saying. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What edit did I make about the teaching or practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church? If some Eastern Orthodox writer who is considered a reliable source says LoveMonkey is the handsomest man in the world, I think I am free to insert a sourced statement of that writer's opinion. It is not about the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching or practice.  :)

Seriously, what I edited or rather restored was a statement that a certain Eastern Orthodox writer "has objected to the term 'Palamism' on the grounds that, he alleges, the term was coined by 'Roman Catholic thinkers' to give a longstanding Orthodox doctrine an 'exotic label', turning it into an 'historically conditioned "-ism" in order to justify their heresy." This statement about "Roman Catholic thinkers" is not about the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching or practice. Writing a few days ago about this precise matter above, LoveMonkey said that it is a Roman Catholic, not an Eastern Orthodox matter: "I can not comment on articles that are Roman Catholic theology based (i.e. Palamism is Roman Catholic as no Greek or Eastern Theologians from the East use such a term in their works, only Western EO converts or Roman Catholic theologians do)." LoveMonkey objected above to you about Dbachmann's removal of what Clark Carlton said about Roman Catholic thinkers. Now he is objecting to my keeping in the article this statement, which he himself has described as "Roman Catholic theology based", but which was originally inserted in the article by himself.

I am perfectly happy with Pseudo-Richard's edit, apart, that is, from the grammatical error, which I have corrected in my quotation of it here, and I hope that nobody tries to remove it. By the way, Clark Carlton is a theologian, and has a Ph.D. in the subject, a fact that Pseudo-Richard seems to want to play down. An ex-Baptist, he is now an Eastern Orthodox. But I consider that a secondary matter. The essential thing is that his statement, which I am keeping in the article, is about Roman Catholic "thinkers" (he refuses to call them theologians). Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't trying to "play down" the fact that Clark Carlton has a Ph.D. I just didn't know it and so I thought "theologian" was too grandiose a term for a talk-show host. I'm OK to use "theologian" now that I know he has a Ph.D. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If it would make LoveMonkey happy to restore the article to how it was before Dbachmann first removed Carlton's statement, the removal to which he objected above, I would have no objection whatever to having it restored to that situation. Esoglou (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Clark Carlton is a radio presenter for the EO point of view. In fact, the restriction lets LoveMonkey (not Esoglou) add 'Eastern Orthodox commentary'. It doesn't say it has to be by a theologian. I don't see how this allows Esoglou to edit statements about what Clark Carlton says. Carlton is commenting from the EO point of view, even though he may be criticizing what Roman Catholic theologians say. The original edit by Esoglou is trying to rephrase what Clark Carlton says. I believe that is outside Esoglou's jurisdiction. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And just to be clear... the point isn't whether Esoglou was right or wrong in his edit. The point is that we are all tired of the editwars between LM and Esoglou with the accompanying snide and uncivil edit summaries. What's needed is that both of them develop a reflex of going to the Talk Page and airing any issues with other editors who can then address the problem if there is a consensus for it. None of this would be necessary if the two of them followed WP:BRD. Oh, and civil discussion is the "D" in BRD. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, that was not the "original" edit. That edit was a partial undoing of an edit by Dbachmann, who had moved Carlton's statement from the lead to another position, had presented the statement by Carlton (a single Eastern Orthodox theologian/commentator) as by a plural "some Orthodox commentators", had falsely attributed to Carlton the phrase "the true theology of St. Gregory Palamas", and had removed what Carlton gave as his view about the inventiveness of Roman Catholic thinkers. Richard, you certainly can't say I failed to discuss the matter on the Talk Page. We had a rather long discussion about it. All those discussing the matter on the Talk Page agreed that, in spite of Dbachmann's removal of it, the Carlton statement should be kept. LoveMonkey chose not to join the discussion. And, by the way, I like the latest edit concerning the Carlton statement, this time by Phatius, just as I liked Richard's latest edit. I am happy with what the article now says on the matter, just as I was happy with what it said before this discussion began. If LoveMonkey wishes to intervene, let him choose, as far as I am concerned, between the two formulations. Esoglou (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, what I meant was that, even after consensus appears to have been reached on the Talk Page, you should not take it upon yourself to implement the consensus if there is any chance that your edit would be perceived as violating the editing restriction. Let someone else do it. I say this with love. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and hold your contributions to Wikipedia in high esteem. However, your interaction style with a number of editors (LoveMonkey being only one of them) is so contentious that you run the risk of being blocked for a long period of time, perhaps indefinitely. I do not want to see that happen. You are not the only one who sees the truth and there are other editors such as Phatius and perhaps myself who can edit without creating quite as much drama as you seem to. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

More Excuses for Esoglou. How is this repeated violation of the restrictions time and time again OK? [19] And not to be seen as frustrating. To Richard, the restrictions where not put in place according to what you have posted. It is the reinterpreting of them every time Esoglou violates them that causes the comments, stop deflecting the blame. I have not opened a complaint on the discussion admin boards here, however Esoglou sure did once he thought I had violated these restrictions. It is the hypocrisy, time and time again that has driven me to post my responses. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... according to Phatius McBluff's [[20] interpretation of the edit restriction], it appears that Esoglou from even commenting on Talk Pages about EO views of the Roman Catholic Church. I haven't gone back to read the actual edit restriction so I'm just going to assume good faith and accept Phatius' interpretation for now. If that is true, then what I wrote above about Esoglou raising issues on Talk Pages become inoperative. I'm not convinced such a broad editing restriction is a good idea but, for now, everyone should stick to whatever the editing restriction says. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How about we modify the restriction by agreement to allow both parties (Esoglou and LoveMonkey) to participate freely on talk pages. Would anyone object? If they both agree to this change, I think it should be allowed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I will agree to lifting that restriction, in this way, as it will not change that Esoglou simply will not stop editing on EO theology and people will continue to cover for him and do nothing to him. This is at least the third time Esoglou has violated these restrictions and as of yet he has not had to have any compromise made of him. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I raised no objection to the proposal to exclude all edits dealing with the teaching and practice of the other church, but LoveMonkey wanted to keep putting in comments about the theology of the church to which he does not belong. I accepted even that exception, which gives LoveMonkey quite a free hand, while today's Roman Catholic theologians are generally free of the sectarian attitude that, instead of presenting positively what it believes, defines itself by what it does not believe but that others supposedly do. In the same way I now raise no objection to freeing the talk pages, while some class of edits or even all edits to certain articles are still to be excluded.

May I ask as a favour that what we two are to abstain from writing about be defined clearly. "The teaching and practice of the other church" has proved open to elastic interpretations.

(Before I explain further, may I again point out, this time more or less as an aside, that in making the statement that is discussed above, Carlton does not claim to be expressing Eastern Orthodox teaching. Ex-Baptist Carlton has been faulted by other Eastern Orthodox for not giving a faithful presentation of Eastern Orthodox Church teaching. Indeed, one of the things for which he is faulted is having his book advertised as approved by all jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox Church, "although in fact, the personal opinions of a number of individuals in different jurisdictions were sought and received, nothing more". Not unlike the way some editors here are presenting the personal opinion of the individual called Clark Carlton.)

Is it proposed that all opinions expressed by Eastern Orthodox theologians are to be out of bounds for me, even if those theologians do not present their opinions as church teachings? For instance, John S. Romanides declares that Greek, not Latin, was the language originally spoken in Rome. Am I to be faulted if I edit an article that includes that statement by Romanides, who happens to be an Eastern Orthodox theologian? Am I forbidden to cite for a fact or opinion that does not concern Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice a writer who happens to have written also on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice? And is LoveMonkey to continue to have the privilege of inserting at will any opinion that pleases him which has been expressed by some individual Eastern Orthodox theologian? Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"At will" does not ignore the rule that those opinions that the privileged editor chooses (while eliminating at will, if they do not please him, opinions expressed by theologians of the same church - even some declared at the reliable sources noticeboard to be reliable sources, as in this example) must be then presented in a certain manner, i.e., as opinions - opinions, however, that are then seen as "teaching or practice". Esoglou (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, my primary interest here is in keeping the troubled peace (such as it is) between LoveMonkey and Esoglou. A truce which is marred by ceasefire violations is nonetheless a truce as long as open hostilities do not break out. Thus, as much as there is continued sniping and complaints of edit restriction violations, at least we have not had the open edit-warring which is truly detrimental to the project. I would wish for more collegiality and collaboration and less incivility than we've been seeing lately but Rome was not built in a day.

Re Carlton: The link provided by Esoglou that criticizes Carlton does not seem relevant to the quote cited in the article. AFAICT, that quote DOES represent the majority view of the Orthodox Church. The sentiment in it is a widespread sentiment among Orthodox theologians (though perhaps not an official teaching of the Orthodox Church). As such, Esoglou should leave it alone even though it is an opinion of Orthodox Christians about what the Roman Catholic Church believes or teaches. Contrary to what Taiwan boi asserts, I see this as a gray area because I can understand Esoglou's desire to correct what he believes to be an erroneous understanding of what the Catholic Church believes. Nonetheless, it is ultimately an Orthodox understanding (or misunderstanding) and Esoglou should let it alone.

Here are my proposed responses to Esoglou's questions:

Q: Is it proposed that all opinions expressed by Eastern Orthodox theologians are to be out of bounds for me, even if those theologians do not present their opinions as church teachings?

A: Yes. I propose that you be allowed to discuss all text related to Church teachings and opinions by Orthodox theologians but that you be restricted from editing any such text with the exception of BLP violations or other serious infractions of Wikipedia policy.

Q: For instance, John S. Romanides declares that Greek, not Latin, was the language originally spoken in Rome. Am I to be faulted if I edit an article that includes that statement by Romanides, who happens to be an Eastern Orthodox theologian?

A: If this declaration is made in the context of a theological or ecclesiological discussion, then the answer is "Yes. Stay away from editing the text." Romanides is not a historian, he is a theologian who engages in polemics. It is your tendency to engage in original research by directly challenging primary sources that has gotten you into trouble. The editing restriction is meant to keep you out of future occurrences of such trouble.

Q: Is LoveMonkey to continue to have the privilege of inserting at will any opinion that pleases him which has been expressed by some individual Eastern Orthodox theologian?

A: Not necessarily "at will". In the past, you have taken it upon yourself to be the "guardian of the truth" who corrects the egregious errors committed by LoveMonkey. Unfortunately, the contentiousness which has resulted from these efforts have led to edit-warring and incivility which has been deemed unacceptable by just about everyone involved including Phatius McBluff and myself. I think Phatius and I have generally been supportive of your point of view but we are not supportive of your contentiousness. All we are asking is that you bring your concerns to the group and let other editors correct the problems introduced by LoveMonkey. We are making the same request of LoveMonkey with respect to the problems he sees in your edits. No more edit-warring between the two of you. Period. It really has to stop or we will have to stop one or both of you via a block or a ban. (An outcome which I would very much like to avoid.)

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lest I be misunderstood, I wish to clarify my earlier comment. What I wrote above is sharply critical of Esoglou. That is because the discussion is with Esoglou and about his past behavior and restrictions on his future behavior. However, it takes two to tango. LoveMonkey has been at least contentious as Esoglou and has engaged in edit warring and incivility as well. What I wrote above doesn't focus on his behavior because that is not the topic at hand. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this case my undoing of Dbachmann's edit was not "correcting an egregious error committed by LoveMonkey", and I did not see it as making any comment by me on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice. Should the wording of the restriction be adjusted somewhat? Or instead, would it be simpler and clearer if LoveMonkey and I agreed to make no edit whatever to some list of articles that you or someone else could add to as necessary? We could agree that, if I violated that restriction, even by mistake, I would make a donation of, say, three hundred United States dollars (or more or less, as agreed), to any Eastern Orthodox charity that LoveMonkey would name, and if he violated it, even by mistake, he would make the same donation to a Roman Catholic charity named by me. Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as the donations to charities are concerned, far be it from me to discourage such activity but I think we should focus less on enforcement via penalties and rely instead on a gentleman's agreement which is enforced by moral suasion and an honest willingness to recognize mistakes, apologize for them and to forgive them. (If you're a believer in WWJD?, I think you would see that this is the way to go.) The idea of creating a list of verboten articles is (sorry) a Catholic approach. It requires a bureaucracy to create a list and then maintain it as we discover new articles that belong under the restriction. The spirit of the restriction is clear even if the specific interpretation is not. As long as we take the "gentleman's agreement" approach of admonishing violations and "not making a big deal out of them", I think we are better off than if we spend a lot of effort Wikilawyering over which articles fall under the restriction and which specific text falls under it.

I myself tend to agree with you over the innocuousness of your reverting of Dbachmann's edit but, since other parties seem to care, I would counsel you to just stay as far away from the delineation as possible. I can't believe we've spent this much time discussing an edit. Christians love to dispute over small issues. So do Wikipedians. Christian Wikipedians discussing Christian issues? That, it seems to me, is the definition of hell.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou can't see that his undoing of Dbachmann's edit violated his editing restriction:

Well, in this case my undoing of Dbachmann's edit was not "correcting an egregious error committed by LoveMonkey", and I did not see it as making any comment by me on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice.

It seems to me that most others *do* see it as a violation. I don't know where to go from here. Carlton is an EO proponent, and even if he was alleging that Catholics believe in pink elephants, Esoglou should not have been changing any sentences which present Carlton's views. It would be Esoglou's role to point out any problems he perceives with Carlton to others, so they can decide if it needs fixing. The editing restriction won't work if Esoglou can't understand it, but I don't see what is so difficult. I am on the point of proposing a sanction of Esoglou. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea that you, Ed, have been wanting to do so for more than just the last couple of days. While I do certainly accept Richard's suggestion to me, I did think that it was just possible that my request for a clearer enunciation of the restriction might get a response. It seems that I was mistaken. Any decision on the talk-page question? Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat that I have no problems with Carlton - quite the contrary - and that I was only restoring what Carlton said, an action that I am told I should not do and so a decision I must accept? My problem was not with Carlton, but with Dbachmann's removal of what Carlton said. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me the bottom line? Are you agreeing not to modify sentences which present Carlton's views in the future? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Unhesitatingly so, since what is decisive in Wikipedia is the consensus of those involved, not the opinion of any one of them, regardless of rank. There is consensus that, whatever anyone else says is Carlton's view, even presenting it as belief in pink elephants, I am not to touch what is said of his view. I take it that you will not in response to my queries make any clarifying modification of the restriction on editing article pages. Have you decided to modify what the restriction says about talk-page discussions? Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Regarding talk pages, you need to tell us your decision. If you agree that both you and LM should be allowed to use talk pages freely, I will make the change in the restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had read what I wrote, "I now raise no objection to freeing the talk pages", just before I asked "as a favour that what we two are to abstain from writing about be defined clearly". Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Per this edit, and by agreement of the parties I changed the editing restriction so that you and LoveMonkey are free to discuss these matters on Talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration renewed discussion

I am sorry that a bot archived this discussion page so now perhaps we might face a difficulty in communication due to the back and forth reading of pages. Anyway, i had some time to think about your comment and think i did. It was somewhat difficult for me to respond timely so i failed to avoid archiving, which i haven't even thought of in the first place. But, there's not much i can do about it now, i think, then express my regrets for the situation. Now about the reason for this renewal of discussion: what else would it be than the same issue as before - the sanction you imposed upon me. Of course, you may think. So here what i was thinking. And thought through, i think. :-) In your comment you gave me an impression that you are not completely sure about the reasons you imposed your sanctions. Why not sure - because you stated that you "don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind this case". But if you don't see a need, that doesn't mean there isn't any, right? I am not trying intentionally to catch in you some syllogistic trap, trust me, i am just trying to convey my case - of course - what else. Also, in your comment why are you describing the conditions of the deal - the deal as you named it. I honestly don't understand whether there is any other purpose for this than to emphasize your previous decision. It is because i don't find the deal any different than the sanction already imposed upon me i.e. my account. I might have missed something, though. Since this ruling of yours is important to me currently because it affects my edits, i would like you not to interpret my words as anything else but good faith. I understand we might have exchanged some fiery thoughts - but that could change, i think. On my behalf, i can say i was unpleasantly surprised, and therefore quite disturbed by the lack of your willingness to perceive the things from my perspective. I say the lack, because i perceive it as such - it's not necessary a true lack. Anyway, i would like you to "re-analyze the evidence behind this case", because i most sincerely believe i was wrongfully accused and therefore unjustly judged upon. I might be mistaken in my belief but please do point me, where these mistakes might be. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your ban from editing articles related to Kosovo expires on 30 July, 2011. If you feel it essential to return to those articles sooner, you can file an appeal at WP:Arbitration enforcement by using the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. If not satisfied with the response there, you can appeal to Arbcom. The last time we discussed this was at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 21#Arbitration. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the options which you presented, and i believe you understand you were clear with this before. Also i know when and where before my previous post at your discussion page, exactly was it that we discussed this. What i am doing is examining my options with you. I would like you to answer the only question i asked in my previous comment here. I will rephrase it: If you don't see a need to re-analyze the evidence behind the case, does this mean that there is no need at all? Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have chosen not to lift your ban myself. You are still welcome to appeal to WP:AE and to Arbcom. If you go to AE, the evidence behind the original ban will most likely be reviewed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I surely understand your decision. But what i don't understand is whether you have reviewed the evidence after my appeal to you. And if you haven't, i honestly wonder how come that my most recent comments had not raised any doubts in your decisiveness regarding your decision? Because in my opinion you were stating your own opinions on my history of edits and with that, some stance of mine - opinions which you gave somewhat too promptly in the very arbitration case itself. Opinions which are, in my own and personal opinion, also somewhat too personal - because of the lack of expressed arguments to support them - opinions as this one is: "I hope that Biblbroks will soon add his own response so we can see if he is open to changing his approach to Kosovo-related articles." Regardless of other editors' (except the plaintiff's) comments involved in the arbitration case you opinionated that i had an approach to Kosovo-related articles. An approach i should be open to change - as i understand. What would that approach be, i ask you. And why do you mention the Kosovo-related articles in plural - do you know of any other case of my edits to some other Kosovo-related articles which reflect an approach of mine that ought to change? Of course, any other edits apart from the same edits to the Kosovo article itself - edits which are currently a matter of discussion, and dispute. I mean, what i am asking you is: were there any such edits recently at least - recently as in a year ago or sooner. That is, if you investigated further than that period, i am certain that you might find some of my previous edits that might appear to someone as "me having an approach", but only if you assumed that my knowledge of English language had been perfect. Which it wasn't and still isn't as i am not a native speaker, and therefore i might have some preconceptions about meanings and usage of words and syntagmas in this language. Anyway, i believe i am improving those skills of mine. Looking forward to your reply with sincere regards to you, --biblbroks (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing more to discuss. As stated above, I've decided not to lift the ban. Please pursue the other options. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Before this thread closes, I will repeat the offer I made previously. If you agree to the following four things, I will lift the ban:

1. Observe 1RR/week in the future on all articles related to Kosovo
2. Not modify any interwiki links on articles related to Kosovo
3. You will try to ensure strict political neutrality for any edits you make to Kosovo-related articles
4. You won't make any controversial changes without first getting consensus on the talk page.

If you want me to follow up, please reply yes or no as to whether you will accept these conditions, for the period between now and July 30. EdJohnston (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jahlove1234

Hey. I proposed a resolution on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jahlove1234 that involves your block there. If you could chime in, that'd be great. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK with me. I have replied there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Atabəy and Folantin's talkpage

Hi Ed, I wanted to point out poor user's Folantin page: [21]. It should be noted that the user Folantin has made some clear points and I see no point for user Atabey to continously argue against the point Folantin made with unrelated comments in his talkpage (perhaps so that Folantin will say "whatever"). Folantin's points were very clear and I quote them below:

• "Modern historians refer to the state as "Iran" (or "Persia") and so should we. See for example the title of the book Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire by Andrew Newman (IB Tauris, 2006). (A quick search of Google books under "Safavid" will bring up many other examples). Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France."(Folantin on Safavid talkpage)
• " there is evidence that the state was often called Iran during the Safavid period. ". (Folantin on his talkpage)
• IN response to Atabey in his talkpage: "OK, it's just that most modern English-language historians go with "Safavid Iran" or "Safavid Persia" and Wikipedia should follow what they write. To take a more extreme example, nobody who lived under the Byzantine Empire called it that, but that's the name modern historians generally use, so it's the name of the Wikipedia article." (Folantin in his talkpage)
• "The main point is, Wikipedia goes by what modern historians call it (in this case, "Safavid Iran"). I referred to the "Byzantine Empire" as an "extreme example" of this. It was unlike Iran under the Safavids because nobody at all used the designation "Byzantine Empire" at the time, yet the Wikipedia article goes by the name "Byzantine Empire". In other words, the local or contemporary name of historical states is often completely irrelevant in deciding the names of Wikipedia articles about them." (in his talkpage).

You gave him permission to seek an RfC and the RfC was responded to by a neutral 3rd party who has greatly edited the article in past. So the matter is closed, but if arguments on these closed matters are continued with OR comments, then this is precisely definition tendentious editing, which violates both wikipedia is not battle-ground, and also has been the reason that User:Moreschi has banned authors from AA in certain articles (or even whole topics). Wikipedia is not a [[WP:forum] and not a place for endless arguments on a point that was resolved by RfC. People are free to have their opinion outside of Wikipedia (in weblogs and websites, newspapers and etc), but when they make comments, I persume their goal is to improve Wikipedia article, and discuss the article. If a matter has been resolved by a neutral 3rd party, then there is no point to bringing it up again. Anyhow, I believe the edits Folantin made to the introduction resolved all issues with that regard. Folantin suggested that the legacy section of the article be expanded, and I personally believe that it should be proposed in the talkpage, and then accepted by User Folantin. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ed, I know this might take some time to read, but please read it. If you look at the page, an RfC was requested on controversial issues and a 3rd party User:Folantin addressed all the points as well as edited the introduction [22]. I agreed with all his points which were:

• (a) Folantin: there is no "There is no need for the repetition of "Iran." " which he changed." (I agreed, controversial issue one fixed)
• (b) Folantin: "The name of the article should be "Safavid dynasty" per the equivalent on Encyclopaedia Iranica as well as in line with other Wikipedia pages such as Qajar dynasty." (this was not a controversial issue, and I agree with Folantin, there was no debate))
• (c) Folantin: "Modern historians refer to the state as "Iran" (or "Persia") and so should we. See for example the title of the book Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire by Andrew Newman (IB Tauris, 2006). (A quick search of Google books under "Safavid" will bring up many other examples). Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France" (this was the major point of contention, and Folantin has firmly answered it.)
  • But Atabey tries to challange Folantin on this issue, so he goes on to Folantin's page to try to what I consider change the opinion of User:Folantin. However User Folantin replied twice on his talkpage:
    • "OK, it's just that most modern English-language historians go with "Safavid Iran" or "Safavid Persia" and Wikipedia should follow what they write. To take a more extreme example, nobody who lived under the Byzantine Empire called it that, but that's the name modern historians generally use, so it's the name of the Wikipedia article" (Folantin's response to Atabey).. Atabey again tries to argue this response:
    • "Yes, sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. As you say, there is evidence that the state was often called Iran during the Safavid period. The main point is, Wikipedia goes by what modern historians call it (in this case, "Safavid Iran"). I referred to the "Byzantine Empire" as an "extreme example" of this. It was unlike Iran under the Safavids because nobody at all used the designation "Byzantine Empire" at the time, yet the Wikipedia article goes by the name "Byzantine Empire". In other words, the local or contemporary name of historical states is often completely irrelevant in deciding the names of Wikipedia articles about them. " (Folantin second response on his talkpage)
  • So either Atabey accepts the results of the RfC (which you allowed him to partake in) or else this should be considered tendentious editing and permanently banned from regional topics.
• (d) Folantin point: "As a rider to the above, the introduction should indicate that the Safavid empire at its height did not just include the territory of the modern Islamic Republic of Iran but all, or part, of the territories of the modern states of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Iraq and so on. " ( I added this and there is no contention on this issue)
• (e) Folantin point: "As the title of Newman's book also indicates, there is a general consensus among historians that the Safavid realm was the first time there had been an independent state called "Iran" since the fall of the Sassanid Empire." (again this overlaps with point c, I totally agree, and this was the major issue that Atabey was challenging)
• (f) Folantin point: "The languages in the introduction should be limited to Persian and Azerbaijani, the chief languages of court. The Azerbaijani should be in the Arabic script in use during the Safavid era".(I agree here, and as Folantin suggested the latin alphabet, Kurdish, Georgian and etc. can be put in the footnote. It should be noted that the Roman/Latin alphabet had no currecntly during the Safavid era, and it is totally anachronistic specially with the phonetic that is used in writing it).
• (g) Folantin: "Fussing about the exact ethnic make-up of the Safavids is a waste of time. As far as I can see, it is the normal condition of many, if not most, royal families to be multi-ethnic. " (I totally agreed and change the origin section to "origin and multi-cultural identity of the Safavids")
• (h) Folantin :"Using this fact to try to make the Safavid shahs into either modern ethnic Persians or Azerbaijanis seems to me totally anachronistic and misguided. " (I totally agreed)
• (i) Folantin: "The legacy section should be re-written and should maybe focus on the importance of the Safavids for the modern world. After all, there would be no Islamic Republic of Iran had the Safavids not converted the country to Shi’a Islam. The end of Safavid rule led to a breakdown in the close relationship between “church and state”, which would eventually result in the stand-off between the Pahlavis and the clergy and the end of imperial rule. A similar thing could be done for the importance of the Safavids in Azerbaijani history etc" (This section on Legacy can be expanded for sure, but given the ban on Atabey on editing the article, he needs to propose his wordings and Folantin or someone else can enter it).

So the issue of point c and e, which was confirmed by WP:RS sources, and also confirmed by User:Folantin (four times), in my opinion is being challenged in Folantin's userpage due to red-herring arguments (see the talkpage of Folantin where Atabey assigns his intrepretation to quotes which do not claim what he states) and tendentious editing. If a user has made the same point 4 times, then bothering them with constant comments to change their opinion is in my opinion tendentious editing. Just note also what I wrote here: [23] on a source that Atabey calls "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran and Safavid history". Either the author is distinguished (which means Atabey must accept it as WP:RS) or it shows that "distinguished" is just a word. Please note carefully what I wrote about this source: [24].

Anyhow, as a 3rd party expert user, User:Folantin has addressed all my concern and there is nothing I disagree with. He has done all the relavent edits in the intro. There are two other issues that needs to be implemented based on his proposal: 1) The latin Azeri name, Georgian names, Kurdish, Arabic etc. names as he suggested can be put in the foonote and I agreed. 2) And also the legacy section can be expanded to talk about modern identities and their relations to the Safavids. As long as high quality RS sources are used, then that is no problem from my perspective and that section should be expanded. Note, after 12 pages of archives, 3rd party opinion was needed on some issues (it could have gone to 12000 pages without concensus) and it got resolved. User:Folantin is not from the area, but aware of its history and has contributed to article. He has no bones to pick and his record in wikipedia shows no topic bans, arbcomms, sanctions and etc. So his RfC should be seen as the reason why you let Atabey participate in the article in the first place. All points of it should be implemented and there are only two points left to be implemented. However challenging the result of the RfC from a 3rd party neutral user (in their talkpage) who has made the same point at least four times (points (c) and (e)) is not acceptable behaviour. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are OK with the current first paragraph, and you are OK with putting the Latin Azeri name, the Georgian names, the Kurdish and Arabic names into the footnote. I do not see much likelihood that Atabey will be able to persuade people to change the name of the article. I do not know yet if he will approve the current first paragraph, but I trust that he will respond here. I hope he will agree to having the Azeri etc. names in the footnote. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am okay with all of that and I accepted all the points made by Folatin. Please note that I am partially Kurdish (from Kermanshah region), and if I wanted to do what I like, then I would also put Kurdish in the intro. But I accepted every single point of Folantin's decision. Also Folantin edited the fist paragraph and it took care of my concern as well. Or for example before, the first word was: "Safavid dynasty of Iran", but Folantin removed the word "Iran" (the issue was discussed and I accepted Folantin's decision). However, there will be no agreement if one side agrees to do change the things they might have been inclined towards and the other side does not. What bothers me though is when a neutral 3rd party user states the same opinion 4 times (on points (c) and (e) above);and yet a user goes in the 3rd parties webpage and tries to argue the same point.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, unfortunately amidst the repetitive books worth of writing by Khodabandeh, it's impossible to trace what and who is writing what on talk pages. As I mentioned the edits and suggestion by Folantin are acceptable to me. And I never suggested to change the name of article, which is currently "Safavid dynasty". And I accept the fact that only Persian and Azerbaijani transliterations show in the introduction (that's what I asked for in first place). The only remaining issue now is that my block needs to be lifted in order for me, per Folantin's suggestion, to start contributing to Legacy section. I kindly ask Khodabandeh to spare from responding to my small paragraph, so that Ed can read it, otherwise, I will have to email this to him. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, Folantin did not suggest moving Azeri to footnote, only Kurdish, etc. spellings. Azeri was the language of Safavid court, hence should show along with Persian in introduction. If Khodabandeh complains about alphabet, ok, I will live with having Arabic script, although I don't see the reason for opposing ISO-standardized Latin script for Azeri, I don't want to spend time on this. Would rather focus on other parts of article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of arguing going on. It seems that Folantin, Khodabandeh and Atabəy all agree on one paragraph. This is good. Azeri *is* showing along with Persian. I assume that is OK. Atabəy, in your RfC you proposed: "a. Rename the article to "Safavid State" (dovlat-e Safavi) or "Safavid Empire"". Are you accepting the current title now? Everyone seems to be OK with removing Kurdish and Georgian spellings, as you proposed in your 'd'. Atabəy, you are not blocked but your ban does not yet allow you to edit the article. If you want to change the Legacy section why don't you make a draft on the article talk page and it can be discussed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

HI, Just clarification. Folantin's suggestion was for the Roman alphabet to be put in the footnote. So I am okay with that, and I am glad everything is resolved. On the legacy section and a paragraph, if Atabey writes it, puts it in the talkpage and it is acceptable, either Folantin or even EdJhonson or even me can put it in the legacy section. Thanks. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving comments

Hi Ed. Can you explain to me why you moved my comments at the AE request [25]? I was NOT making a general comment but rather speaking specifically about what the results should be. As such, my comment should be in the "results" section. If what bothered you was the threaded nature of the comment, I can "star" it for you in order to bring it in line with the format of the other comments in the section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the notice just under the 'Result' heading: "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And where does this notice come from? Is there a format that the ArbCom decided would be followed on AE pages which made the existence of this section to be edited only by uninvolved administrators mandatory? This is an honest question. I just don't see any reason why the "results" section should be limited to "uninvolved administrators". "Uninvolved editors" yes, but there's no reason to draw another thick line of demarcation between admins (and being an admin is a "no big deal") and regular editors who may wish to offer their insight. What's the history of this section? Who decided this? The way I see it, the only reason admins are needed here is because they are the only ones who can implement bans and blocks and discretionary sanctions. But there's nothing about who is included and who is forcibly excluded from the discussion.

Perhaps the proper course of action would have been to have removed the spurious, discriminatory, and arbitrary "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above." notice, rather than my comments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed about three months ago, and the present scheme was endorsed by those who gave their opinion. I can't find the archive page but it's around somewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you gimme a link? I'd like to see it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion in January, 2011 at Template talk:Sanction enforcement request. Uninvolved admins play a particular role at AE since they are the only ones who can close a discussion, per Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Rms ARE closure

Hi. Thanks for officially closing out the matter. Do you plan to do a closure synopsis (I don't know exactly what it's called)? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops I see you did it already. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again. I wanted to explain that while I was trying to add the above question, I got two edit conflicts, and by the time I posted the question you had already done the ARE closure synopsis (or whatever it is called). I have dial up and my computer's slow anyway. I had to manually delete the actual sample of the synopsis as I was unable to find a way to strike it using the regular markups (<s></s>). I only added it as I did not know what terminology to use to describe it and wanted to show you. (I am sure you have noticed or will notice the transactions on your edit history). Also, the phraseology I used was not meant to be a suggestion of how you would be wording it, just my example. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I would like to ask you a question. If you could see your way to emailing me when you have the chance (I updated my Preferences), I'd greatly appreciate it. I would do so but your userpage does not indicate emailing options, unless I am missing something. If you elect not to do so I understand. I hope I am not violating any Wikipedia regulation by making this request. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Per your request, I sent you a mail. The 'e-mail this user' link is in the Toolbox at left, hidden by default on the Vector skin, but easily found in Monobook. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

blocking Routerone and John Foxe

• Routerone (talk · contribs)
• John Foxe (talk · contribs)

I'm curious why you chose to block these users, considering the edit warring was very stale. It seems to be more punitive than protective, can you exposit on your rationale a bit? tedder (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's a case of long-term warring, the passage of time means less. The fact that Foxe hasn't reverted for 24 hours is not a good prediction that the troubles are over on this article. He was properly notified of the 3RR report and has edited since the notice, but has not replied at the board. Do you think full protection would have been the best response? EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to lean towards full protection, but you are right, it should be seen through the lens of long-term warring, not a specific incident. I think there is a case to be made for blocking the two users and a case to be made against it- no worries. I just wanted to hear some more rationale- thanks! tedder (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Routerone

I'm not going to adjust anything, but I was curious as to why the block you gave out was so short. Given his block history for precisely this issue, I would have probably gone for either one month or indefinite.—Kww(talk) 11:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the block could have been longer. No objection if you want to change it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Helder Ferreira

You mean reverting this edit. But it was obvoius vandalism for me. User Schweinee restored this rubbish info without providing any reference.--Oleola (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree to take a break from the article for seven days.--Oleola (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:uw-sanctions

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

Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I need some advice from you, please have a look:[26], I had a big and tedious argument with user:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ(Dungane) over Boxer Rebellion. It will take forever to read through it, but basically, I was advocating implementation of WP Neutrality, and he was:

“ what I want is for an admin to make clear any kind of unsubstantiated fringe conspiracy theory pushing involving ad hominem attacks of marxism, black panthers, communists, or the chinese government/chinese textbooks is forbidden as off topic on the talk page of the Boxer Rebellion article,ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) ”

User Dungane had written more than 10,000 words of argument, mostly consist of personal attacks against me and user John Smith's, and just refuse to calm down to join me on discussion on how to implement WP rules. Since no admin had even care to make any statement on this ANI, let alone any decision, I hereby come here to seek your advice. Arilang ^talk 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)