User talk:EdJohnston

Die Freiheitlichen/The Libertarians/The Freedomites

Hello EdJohnston,

I'm writing you with reference to your decision to move the article from The Libertarians (the article's long term name) to Die Freiheitlichen and to protect the page from moves. I agree that the article should be protected from moves (as asked by User:Erpert), but, as it happens, the wrong name was protected.

If you are interested, here is a short summary of the article's move history:

The article was created by me as The Libertarians on 26 February 2007. For fully six years the article's name remained stable. On 28 February 2013 User:RJFF moved the article to Die Freiheitlichen and on 2 March 2013 I moved it to The Freedomites (RJFF had nothing to say about that as he had been supporting the use of Freedomites as part of another article's name—see here and here). Eight months later, on 11 November, User:QuartierLatin1968 moved the article to Freedom Party (South Tyrol); although I could live with that name, I rollbacked his edit and started to discuss. On 19 November the article was moved back by User:Gryffindor to The Libertarians on 19 November 2013. Before and after that, User:Sajoch has been repeatedly moving the article with no consensus.

The law of the strongest should not prevail in Wikipedia. I'm thus asking to please move the article back to The Libertarians or The Freedomites.

Many thanks for your cooperation. --Checco (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What do you mean by "the law of the strongest"? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 11:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Checco. If you want the article moved again, please open a {{Requested move}} discussion on Talk:Die Freiheitlichen. If you don't know how to do this, I can provide assistance with the formalities. This causes the question to be centrally listed at WP:RM. After seven days an admin will close the discussion and state the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ed, I don't understand your answer. In fact my request was quite uncontroversial.

The article was arbitrarily moved to Die Freiheitlichen and protected from moves, but there has never been a broad consensus on that name. There was an ongoing discussion on the talk page, then, by a sleight of hand (not to say something worse), Sajoch exploited the holidays to move the article to his preferred name (Die Freiheitlichen) and was so lucky to have it protected. He did that, ignoring consensus and the talk (as he had repeatedly done with other articles in the past—see here), and, instead of being penalized, he was rewarded: this is what I mean with "law of the strongest".

I know the issue is a little bit complicated. In fact, you are not the first admin to be cheated by Sajoch. On 19 November User:Gryffindor first moved the article from The Freedomites to Die Freiheitlichen, but then acknowlegded his mistake and moved the article to The Libertarians ("restore original name of article, discuss first"). That's what we need to do: restore the original name (The Libertarians, February 2007–February 2013) or the most recent stable name (The Freedomites, February–November 2013) and go back to discussion. I'm sure it was not your intention to appease and favor an aggressive user like Sajoch, thus I trust your good faith and ask you to follow Gryffindor's example. --Checco (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

See the instructions at WP:RM. It is easier to do it the right way than to keep complaining about other people. If you do in fact have consensus for your version, then the discussion will reveal it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why the version imposed by an aggressive user (Sajoch) without consensus should be the one online now? It is Sajoch not me that should have started a WP:RM instead of deciding to disrupt a peaceful discussion. Why should you favor Sajoch instead of others users who have continued to talk and abide to WP rules? I'm very sorry about that. --Checco (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ps: What I'm asking you is just a technical move, in order to re-establish the situation prior to Sajoch's move without consensus.

Unless a new consensus is formed, there is no reason why the article should stay at Die Freiheitlichen. It is very sad to see an administrator taking sides in a controversy with users, it is even more sadder to see an administrator taking the side of an agreessive user who has imposed his view on others. I still believe in your good faith and judgement. By moving the article to Sajoch's preferred name, you tilted the discussion in his favor and, as you know, it is difficult to move pages: any WP:RM would be influenced by the current name, which is there thanks to Sajoch's sleight of hand. Please take a look to the article's history (Die Freiheitlichen was never an established name), read carefully the whole talk and re-consider your decision by moving the article to its previous established name. --Checco (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Emailed

you. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Black egyptian block

Not sure, where I should respond, so here goes on your talk page:

Yes. The Black Egyptian hypothesis Talk Page is full of constructive discussion between me and other editors. I follow the restriction and I attempt to reach consensus. Please see the Talk Page. The latest edits came after a year of consensus building on the Talk page (regarding the topic of the latest edits, pictures), which culminated in at least four editors agreeing to the edit. Doug routinely attempts to have anyone disagreeing with him, Yalens, or Aua banned from these articles. The latest edits are being constructively discussed at WP:NPOVN and constructively discussed on the article's Talk Page. Furthermore, the edits are being discussed on Paul B's Talk page, where Doug admits that another editor is trying to have him banned from these articles due to misconduct. If Doug is under review to be banned from these articles due to misconduct, is he a good source to recommend that I be banned from the same articles? Finally, this accusation does not impact the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy article, as no one has complained about my edits to that article.

What's essentially at issue here is that a few editors want to impose a picture ban on the black egyptian hypothesis article, although several editors want to add pictures. Consensus is a hard thing to come by when editing these articles, so usually I wait for a positive comment from editors that usually oppose my edits and then I know that the edit is okay. I received that response when editor Aua said "NVM, I kinda dig this whole gallery thing." Since Aua practically never agrees to any of my edits, it sounded like a consensus to me. The flip side of this argument is that the pictures were previously in the article (a year ago) and clearly there isn't consensus to remove them. Shouldn't the same rules apply?Rod (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Dailey78

Re: closure

Re WP:ANEW#User:108.41.173.242 reported by User:Lexein (Result: No violation), I'd appreciate

1. more explanation of what, if anything, I did wrong in the reporting itself.
2. more info on instructions vs. practice: I was under the impression that the noticeboard was about edit warring even if 3RR had not yet been violated. I wouldn't have filed if only 3RR+1 reports were accepted.
3. guidance on whether it's appropriate to keep the article at the state (at any state, really) while discussion is going on, per BRD. I thought I was on solid ground.

--Lexein (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is truly a consensus to use 'https' in this infobox it will be apparent from studying the talk page. You can research that and give links to past discussions. Simply asserting there is a consensus does not settle the matter. In the (likely) event that the matter isn't clear, you can use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The other party was using some apparently specious arguments ("why would you take the recommendation of convicted criminals on links to their court-resolved illegal site") but it's up to the local editors to weigh those, not the admins. The second IP that you cited made only a single edit to the article and shouldn't have been named in an edit warring complaint. If either of you reverts again before the discussion goes anywhere it's risky. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your patience. --Lexein (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

WMKS and WVBZ

Thank you. I did everything necessary, I believe. I checked some of the articles that link to these and made the corrections, but most of them appear to only be linked through a template.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ban appeal

I think there is no particular reason for this ban (link to section at my talkpage with ban notice) to be still valid, so I appeal for its removal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now considering this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

After consulting another admin I'm lifting the sanction. Since I notice a dispute at Talk:Đorđe Pelinović I urge you to be cautious. Arguments about the nationality of names can quickly come back to WP:AE if they get out of control. The other party may not be 100% diplomatic here but do your best. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, given Ad has immediately returned to the same behaviour he was banned for (ie disruptive behaviour on Talk:Pavle Đurišić), and those that reported him for this behaviour in the first place have had no opportunity to comment on the appeal, it seems to me that procedural fairness has been overlooked in this matter. It doesn't just affect Ad, it also affects editors that worked on this article and had to put up with his nonsense before that, and now will have to again. Surely it is not up to you and one other admin to make this decision (without any input from interested editors) when an ARBMAC ban has been imposed? If so, there is something seriously wrong with the system. What is the point in even having this process if he can just appeal it, get it lifted without any opposing arguments being made, and go ahead and immediately return to the same behaviour about the very same thing (ie the Iron Cross issued to Djurisic by the Germans)? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: There is nothing disruptive in my edits on Talk:Pavle Đurišić. I pointed to an issue of citation overkill and proposed how to resolve it based on an essay that deals with this kind of issues.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's an essay with no real influence over policy. You often resort to essays when you have no other recourse to pursue your aim. It is a clear return to the same behaviour, about exactly the same issue you were banned for. Simple as that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Over what policy?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's an essay, not a policy. You pursuing this because you have the same axe to grind as before. Lifting the ban has resulted in an immediate return to the behaviour you were banned for in the first place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive in my edits on Talk:Pavle Đurišić (link to the section in question). Pointing to an issue and proposing its solution is not disruptive. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Antidiskriminator will show willingness to accept consensus on the matter of the Iron Cross and to discuss briefly. If the editors on the talk page have to spend another 10,000 words debating this it won't suggest good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's concerning that a decision that potentially has many repercussions can be made on such a whim. I note you requested Joy's opinion on the matter, but he failed to respond so one cannot consider that much of a "consultation". Surely if a complaint and ban has been thoroughly discussed at length through the proper AE channel then an appeal must also follow the same course? How a decision could be so easily overturned and without an iota of real argumentation from the banned editor and with absolutely no input from other editors is beyond me. Him personally seeing "no particular reason for this ban to be still valid" apparently trumps all else. Antidiskriminator, still unsatisfied with the results of his prior grievances that were discussed ad nauseam, is immediately rehashing them and continuing where he left off. It's obvious he has not bothered to do any self-reflection to see the underlying causes of the ban and has rather just viewed it as an inconvenient timeout. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Joy did respond to my question by email. I hope and expect that User:Antidiskriminator will use the lifting of the ban as an opportunity to show improved behavior at Talk:Pavle Đurišić. If there is no improvement there, admins can deal with it. There did not seem to be much reason to have elaborate process over the lifting of such a narrow ban. It wasn't like it was a complete ban from WP:ARBMAC. Ad's complaint about 'citation overkill' has at least surface validity and an attempt to *briefly* deal with the matter could be acceptable. One option (if he finds it to be a big concern) is to open a WP:Request for comment, with a precise definition of the question to be answered. (Not just 'too many references'.) EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

More edits after warning

I want to thank you for your previous help handling the edit warring on The Time of the Doctor by Anthony Weights. He had been repeatedly adding, under his account and various sock puppets, the same negative slant to the critical reaction section. I'm not sure exactly how to link to the actual Edit Warring Report I made on January 5, but the issue is discussed nearly word-for-word in the Talk page under Reception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Time_of_the_Doctor. The result you gave read:

"Blocked – Warned. While Anthony Weights repeatedly adds a negative slant to the article, he never participates on talk. If he continues to revert without waiting for consensus he may be blocked. Another admin has restored semiprotection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)"

The comment you left on Anthony Weights' talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony_Weights read:

"See the result of the edit warring complaint at WP:AN3#User: Anthony Weights reported by User:Oxford24 (Result: Warned). If you continue to revert to add a negative slant to the article without waiting for consensus on the talk page you may be blocked with no further notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears you have never left a comment on any regular talk page on Wikipedia, in your entire career. This raises the question whether you are truly here to contribute. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)"

I can make another Edit Warring report but I thought it better to directly tell you he has made the same edits to the page again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_of_the_Doctor&action=history, and I believe he made similar edits under the new account TARDIS2468 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_of_the_Doctor&diff=590061992&oldid=590009537. He seems to have made the same edits repeatedly under sock puppets, always with the same fan reviews and changing the reception to "mixed".

He seems to have little regard for the rules or spirit of Wikipedia, and has not participated in any talk discussions, instead trying to make the same edits again and again even after the warning and semi-protection on the page. Banning him I think would be appropriate, but he will probably continue to make edits under socks. Not sure what I can do but periodically watch for edits or just let whoever wants to change this page do it, since they don't ever seem to give up. Thanks so much for your attention. Oxford24 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I left a further warning for User:Anthony Weights (this time a proposal for an indefinite block) but I'm not sure about your sock analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolve

I noticed that you just recently closed one or two of the reports on the Administrator's noticeboard for edit-warring. However I noticed that you did not go near the one I filed for some reason? Can you please resolve or just close it because it appears that administrators in general do not seem to be very involved on that page. ÓCorcráin (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Now addressed. The principle of admin laziness applies to that page. Cases that need a lot of thought get closed last. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Message

Is there a way to PM you about an issue involving an editor and sockpuppeting that I noticed? I don't want to start posting my issue here so that they or anyone else can see. ÓCorcráin (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

See the 'Email this user' link in the left sidebar of this page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, EdJohnston. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ÓCorcráin (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Two years?

EdJohnston, isn't your two-year block of 198.20.32.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a bit harsh? They have only made 4 edits since October, and we are usually a bit more lenient when it's a school. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've actually never noticed a {{schoolblock}} situation turning around, but I might be old and jaded. In my spot check all the edits from that school, going back to 2011, appear to be vandalism. At a school, there is usually no possibility of a dialog with the person at the other end, so rehabilitation through discussion is not an option. If you think a different duration would be better, feel free to change it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

True, it doesn't seem to have been used for any constructive edits. I'll leave it the way it is, since they can always appeal it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree removing that...

Hi Ed,

Do you agree with, "its time to remove this[1]" as you suggested to this be made in that page,I want to see, what you think about this? Regards. KhabarNegar ^Talk 18:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• KhabarNegar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello KhabarNegar. You're asking for review of your restrictions which have been entered in WP:RESTRICT. You don't seem to have a lot of edits since 21 June 2013, though what you've done is OK (maybe 60 edits altogether). We don't really have enough data to tell if the sanctions would no longer be needed. Can you say what you would work on if the sanctions were lifted? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Good question. As for the answer, the answer is I will continue the same way I do after 21 June 2013, nothing more, I'm not interested to get deeply involved in any conflict, even if I'm sure I'm OK, and the other side is troll again I will not get involved. Actually if there is someone else which have the time and power he or she will continue but I'm not interested anymore, SO I will continue as you have seen till now, since 21 June 2013. Probably fixing any obvious vandalism and stuff like that, but even about obvious vandalism I will not persist if the troll or vandal is serious, cause I don't care that much anymore. Regards, (Honesty :) ) KhabarNegar ^Talk 20:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your history before 21 June 2013 includes some edits about Talk:Right-libertarianism that seem to have caused an uproar. Are you planning to go back there? Generally we let people come back to the bad topics if we have reason to think they won't repeat the previous pattern that caused concern. This requires that you state in words what your previous problem was and say what you will do differently. Unless you have a strong desire to return to Right-libertarianism you might be better off just living with the restrictions for another six months. Then you won't have to answer all these questions and you can just do your thing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, here is an option :). I don't want to put any pressure on anyone you or "Doc James" or "Zad68", SO Lets just ban my account(completely) for next more 6 months if you guys want and if it fix any problem. Its OK for me, and ban the account as "Dennis Brown" done for more 6 months, with description of "Disruptive Editor". so in this case you should not answer if any one asked why you remove my account from that list. Its no problem to me. Actually I don't want to go Back to Right Libertarian article, nor to any other article in these kinds of categories. Actually I used Wikipedia by Good Faith, but that restrictions doesn't show that, anyway I think its easy, as my side, The only thing I can say is, I will not get involved in any conflict in any article anymore,(so I think it fix anything), I will also don't remove previous block and stuff from my Talk Page(at least for next 6 month). You also may add my talk page to your watch-list, anyway. but if more 6 months is needed its no problem at all :), Regards, KhabarNegar ^Talk 20:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any case yet to lift the restrictions, but you can remove anything you want from your own talk page, including the old block notice, given that you are not under a current block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you tell me why these restriction is placed, so I may know the reason. I mean which edit have the problem? I don't know which have done wrong? Exactly? and I want to know if its possible in Wikipedia website to know why I got blocked. KhabarNegar ^Talk 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is well explained in the past. You can find all the discussions about you at admin boards using this noticeboard search.

One of the results you'll find is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive801#User:KhabarNegar. In that thread, User:Dennis Brown said:

"The short version is that KhabarNegar's enthusiasm exceeds his clue to the degree that it is causing disruption for a number of people. While he may have some good intentions mixed in there, his methods are fatally flawed. Edit warring, copyvios, misunderstanding policy to an extreme degree, not understanding what is and isn't a reliable source. I don't want to claim incompetence, but it is an inability to cooperate in a collaborative environment and abject misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works..."' (June, 2013)

Your best plan for now is to spend some time making quiet improvements that others don't quarrel with, and don't lead to misunderstandings. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, what you copy from Dennis are just some words, If Wikipedia have rules, these words should been proved according Wikipedia policies. ""These are just putting some words next to each other"". I didn't act against ANY SINGLE policy of Wikipedia Website, ... as I said I don't care, even if all these restriction are removed I will not get Wikipedia reliability serious anymore, as I said before, But I Just wanted to know if anyone really understand the situation here or not. Anyway Thank you for the help, As I said I just wanted to know more about the way it works, & Its not important, Regards, KhabarNegar ^Talk 07:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your English is all twisted up, and even if I understood it, your logic doesn't make sense. Can't understand "I will not get Wikipedia reliability serious anymore". My guess is that you also edit the Persian Wikipedia, and it might be better to work there where I assume that the language will not be a barrier. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Chovgan

Hi, as you know my topic ban includes from everything concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan has been made indefinite, but with a sports exemption. I want to ask, can I edit this Chovgan article, it is related to history but Chovgan known as sport? --NovaSkola (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Should be OK, but it is better to ask User:Sandstein since he is the admin who issued your sports exemption. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Civatrope

I'm pretty sure there already is a consensus on the talk page. What else do I have to do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civatrope (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't look like consensus to me. You are better off posting at WP:AN3 and agree to take a break from the article for seven days. Otherwise your edit warring is still blockable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

On the overall talk page the following users mentioned things related to my revision attempt:

Dantai Amakiir Enoch777 120.22.150.144 68.187.247.93 Nothingeverhappensever Uncle Ed Madprofessional Bulldogo 123.237.112.127 95.109.103.15 Civatrope

There are (were) 110 watchers.

There are only three people fighting the current changes Roscelese, EvergreenFir, and Binksternet.

I am not sure how to calculate consensus I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civatrope (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's too late for this discussion. You should agree to take a break from this article or you will be blocked. The time for consensus was before you made four reverts in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

for protecting AERc - I'm not sure if any of the other pages need the same - see [2]. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Relisting 1992–93 FA Premier League RM

Why did you relist the move discussion on 1992–93 FA Premier League? There is a clear consensus to oppose the move (5 opposes to 2 supports). – PeeJay 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There was an additional vote on 16 January. If the discussion is really over we'll know soon. When it is over, it will probably close the way you stated. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence at SPI?

I fear WP:Tiptibism is the only real reason for the block of User:Roccodrift as an "illegitimate sockpuppet" since no evidence of such was presented, CU showed zero other "sleeper accounts" which would be needed to show "illegitimate sockpuppet" as a rationale, and the person was not presented with anything remotely representing a "fair hearing". Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a great deal of behavioral evidence was presented. So much so that some of it was removed by a clerk. Perhaps you meant proof? Isn't it kind of tacky to repeatedly cite your own essay as if it has bearing on anything?- MrX 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)