User talk:EdJohnston

2014 Hong Kong protests

Hi EdJohnston. I left a message at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring but I fear you wouldn't see it because the discussion will be archived soon. User:Dark Liberty is back in action at 2014 Hong Kong protests, edit warring, blanking sections and generally being disruptive. If you had time to check out his contributions it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

1RR question

Hi Ed, Are the 1RR restrictions on abortion related articles still in effect? If so, there are editors on United States pro-life movement who need notification.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:GS the 1RR restriction is still in effect for abortion. I've alerted User:Goblinshark17. Let me know if anyone else ought to be notified. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There's currently a report at AN3 regarding a violation of 1RR on an abortion article. I came here to ask you about it and saw this topic. I'm having trouble following the entry at WP:GS. The community discussion occurred in early 2011. The arbitration decision occurred in late 2011. The note in the rightmost column at GS says "superseded by" the arb decision, which, to me, means that the community sanctions were superseded, which makes some sense given the chronology. Can you help illuminate this for me?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:GS the community made a two-part ruling. In the first, they established a 1RR. This is still in effect in my opinion. The second part is the sanction regime which was superseded by the Arbcom decision. It is not common for Arbcom to impose 1RRs on their own, so this makes sense. If you want to check against the text of the decision, see the remedy clause. It says that the ‘authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community’ is superseded but nothing about superseding or abolishing the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus topics

Hi Ed. I just wanted to check with you once more the eligibility of Northern Cyprus topics under ARBMAC. I am thinking of filing an AE report on an SPA and I would like to confirm with you before any decision on my part to proceed. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC includes "the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted" which should cover Northern Cyprus. The unstated assumption is there is some kind of nationalist dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ed. The actions of the SPA involve longterm nationalist POV-pushing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Now he is making misrepresentations that I have been rejected by the Arbitration committee on the talkpage of Northern Cyprus and edit-warring with attacking edit-summaries about the AE decision and currently at 3RR on Northern Cyprus. His edit-summary is copying Heimstern's comment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. He just broke 4RR on Northern Cyprus. I have filed a report. And he is still repeating his lie that I got rejected by the Arbitration committee at 3RRN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears that the committee decided in 2012 that Cyprus was not covered by WP:ARBMAC. That limits your options. It is still possible that this editor is a sock, but the last SPI was declined. Maybe you could ask User:Future Perfect at Sunrise if he has any suggestions for what you can do. He and User:Richwales were two of the participants in the 2012 ARCA request about Northern Cyprus. User:Richwales has also participated in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Justice Forever/Archive. User:Alexyflemming's very long posts are not helping his case. If the SPI were refiled, it might conceivably go the other way but the evidence would have to be super well organized and easy to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ed for your advice, as always. Your points on the SPI are well taken and I fully agree with you. I'm not sure though if Rich or Future would want to embark on another Arbcom clarification drive, since they were unsuccesssful last time. But I may contact them for advice. That's an option worthy of consideration. Thank you again. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling of a user's name above. Can I urge all parties to remain as calm as possible? It's not always easy to get admins interested in off-the-beaten-track disputes. Let's not encourage them to believe this is a huge mess with lots of angry people. I actually don't think another filing at WP:ARCA would be sensible. The committee last time seemed to imply that they wouldn't go forward without a case. Now cases are seldom enjoyable so that wouldn't be the first option I would advise. The SPI (if there is good data) would be a better bet. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by calling all parties to remain calm or by "Let's not encourage them to believe this is a huge mess with lots of angry people." This is clearly one single SPA which has demonstrably caused longterm disruption in the area of Cyprus-related topics. The continuing misrepresentations, tendentious editing, and personal attacks of the SPA are well documented and disruptive. That's the extent of the problem. I think that filing relevant reports at 3RRN and AE were a calm response. I also think that the reaction to the disruption caused by the SPA was measured. I don't see any problems there. Except if my reporting it here disturbed you for some reason, for which I am sorry. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your general direction seems correct. Perhaps I reacted to the use of 'which is a lie' in your 3RR report. Also, if an editor misbehaves in several ways it may be best to single out the worst example and not give all of them. Long reports may not be read in detail. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for the clarification. I fully agree with you on all points, including your comment about the term "lie" which I pondered for some time before I used it in the 3RRN report, due to the nuances involved. But when AlexyFlemming plastered in multiple articles and in edit-summaries, talkpages, including mine, the false allegation that Arbcom rejected me personally, I finally decided to use the term "lie", in my report, to highlight the amount of misinformation being attempted. Not sure if that's a good justification, but it is true. :) I also enjoyed your advice about singling out the worst examples of bad behaviour, rather than giving all of them. I plead guilty to that. :) Anyway, thank you again. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus, US Pro-life movement article

Hi EdJohnston, here is a reply to the note you left for me on the TALK page of the US Pro-life movement article:

Excuse me, I've been blocked once for reverting twice within a 24 hr period (by mistake, actually) so I'm trying to be extra careful not to offend again. Please note that my removal of my edit has been reverted (i. e. the sentence about the pro-violence rtl fringe element has been restored), but not by me, as the history shows, I didn't do it, nor did I canvass for it (just recently learned canvassing is a no-no). As far as consensus goes, I would call your attention to USER:Cloonmore, who repeatedly undoes other editor's edits with flimsy justification, and often does not discuss his reversions on the TALK page at all. When he does discuss them on the TALK page, his tone is often curt and arrogant. If you look at previous entries on the TALK page you will see that I am in fact pretty conscientious about justifying my edits on the TALK pages of articles I edit and seeking consensus, even from those who disagree with me (such as USER: Juno).

Best wishes, Goblinshark17 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Postcards

Hello - would you mind reversing your close at Talk:Postcards (disambiguation)? It seems to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:PLURALPT. In your closing statement, you said that "The exceptions documented at WP:PLURALPT envision a singular and a plural that have different primary topics." But that's not true. The guideline specifically allows for a plural leading to a separate dab page: "Just as with any other title, a plural base title can direct to an article (Bookends), or to a dab page (Suns)." There are at least three examples of this on the page: Axes, Suns, and Walls. "Postcards" could certainly fall into that category. Thanks for your consideration. Dohn joe (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that the wording of my closure was too glib. But are you saying that Postcards does not have a primary topic? EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I'm saying that when you combine the plural of "postcard" with the dozen articles or topics called "Postcards", that "Postcards" does not have a primary topic. Just like Sun is the star we revolve around, but Suns is a dab page. See also Talk:Confessions, where some plurals were found to redirect to the singular, but some kept separate dabs. Dohn joe (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Having seen the complexity of the move discussion at Talk:Confessions, I'm undoing the close at Talk:Postcards and leaving it for someone else. Perhaps you want to add a link to the Confessions discussion in your own vote. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There is consensus for the move, and there is policy backing it up (see Talk:Parachutes (album) for a comparable case, and the overwhelming consensus against Dohn joe's quixotic crusade to give excessive weight to pop culture efforts to reference topics of historical importance. The second prong of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC permits us to determine if a topic is primary based on its historical importance, and it is absurd to think that obscure songs, albums, or other such works outweigh the importance of a form of communication in use for over 150 years, and for the foreseeable future. Axes, Suns, and Walls are not comparable (Axes is the plural of two equally important concepts, the mathematical concept of the Axis, and the basic tool, the Axe; Earth has only one Sun, and the article Sun is about that unique object; Walls is debatable, but is widely used as both a surname and a place name. I am reinstating the close. There is nothing worth reversing it over. bd2412 T 17:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:BD2412, you are the promoter of the move. How can you act as the closer of the discussion? I suggest you revert yourself. A relist might be appropriate, because the language of the existing votes does not address everything that was brought up here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The page move eliminated incoming errors; reverting the move would make incoming links erroneous again. It would be like restoring an obvious misspelling to a page to humor one editor's belief that readers who don't know the right spelling might expect to see the wrong one. bd2412 T 17:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not getting this. Involved closures of contested move proposals are just not on. Fixing incoming links is a long-term issue, not an emergency. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Having thought it over, I have reverted to avoid any question as to the propriety of the close. bd2412 T 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

↓↓↓

Yes, go ahead. I don't even want to edit Wikipedia anymore, I think it's waste of time and energy. You can edit, revert, move back, delete or whatever you want to do with anything I've added here. Feel free, I don't mind anymore. Thanks for stopping by. I just want peace. No arguments, no harassment, no verbal wars but just peace. Hemant Dabral^Talk 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked?

Okay. Why did you block me if I haven't got any warnings about any article? Is it because of the Endemol page? If so, I explained my changes before I saved it. King Shadeed 08:53, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Disregard that. I just learned that my user page got vandalized. Sorry about that. King Shadeed 08:56, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

5RR

Cwobeel, the OP at ANEW seems to be at 5RR on the same page where he reported another editor. Diffs posted at ANEW. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)